U.S. Navy Surface Battle Doctrine and Victory in the Pacific

Naval War College ReviewVolume 62Number 1 Winter Article 7

2009

U.S. Navy Surface Battle Doctrine and Victory inthe PacificTrent Hone

Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion inNaval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected].

Recommended CitationHone, Trent (2009) "U.S. Navy Surface Battle Doctrine and Victory in the Pacific," Naval War College Review: Vol. 62 : No. 1 , Article 7.Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol62/iss1/7

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review?utm_source=digital-commons.usnwc.edu%2Fnwc-review%2Fvol62%2Fiss1%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol62?utm_source=digital-commons.usnwc.edu%2Fnwc-review%2Fvol62%2Fiss1%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol62/iss1?utm_source=digital-commons.usnwc.edu%2Fnwc-review%2Fvol62%2Fiss1%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol62/iss1/7?utm_source=digital-commons.usnwc.edu%2Fnwc-review%2Fvol62%2Fiss1%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review?utm_source=digital-commons.usnwc.edu%2Fnwc-review%2Fvol62%2Fiss1%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol62/iss1/7?utm_source=digital-commons.usnwc.edu%2Fnwc-review%2Fvol62%2Fiss1%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

U.S. NAVY SURFACE BATTLE DOCTRINE ANDVICTORY IN THE PACIFIC

Trent Hone

The basic strategic problems confronting the U.S. Navy during the interwar

years of the 1920s and 1930s were how to move a large fleet across the Pacific,

absorb or avoid Japanese attritional attacks, seize forward bases for further oper-

ations, and retain sufficient fighting strength to defeat Japan’s Combined Fleet.

Japanese and American policies in Asia were in conflict, and war was a possible

result; the U.S. Navy planned to win by destroying Japan’s navy, imposing a

blockade, and forcing Japan’s surrender. Details of the strategic dilemma were

the focus of interwar plans, large fleet maneuvers, and complex war games at the

Naval War College, in Newport, Rhode Island. By the time war arrived in 1941,

the concept of an advance across the Pacific had become the subject of extensive

and detailed strategic planning.1

However, the fleet that advanced through the Pacific in World War II was not

the fleet of prewar plans. The prewar Navy had centered on a battle fleet, a

battleship-centric formation that, concentrated together with a large fleet train,

would move as a unit, seizing objectives along its path.2 By early 1943, a new and

more effective fleet organization had become available. Fast carrier task forces

had demonstrated their ability to form powerful strik-

ing forces, maneuver independently of slower assault

shipping, and force a decision on their own.3 The fleet

that took the war to Japanese shores was built around

carrier task forces.

It is generally assumed that the change from a

battleship-centric formation to carrier task forces

Trent Hone, a graduate of Carleton College in North-

field, Minnesota, is a director of software engineering at

Trimble Navigation, Ltd. He has published several arti-

cles on the U.S. Navy’s tactical development before and

during World War II and is coauthor of Battle Line:

The United States Navy, 1919–1939 (2006).

© 2008 by Trent Hone

Naval War College Review, Winter 2009, Vol. 62, No. 1

1

Hone: U.S. Navy Surface Battle Doctrine and Victory in the Pacific

Published by U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, 2009

invalidated the strategic and tactical planning carried out before the war, but

this view is incorrect. The continuity in the Navy’s strategic planning has already

been illustrated by Edward Miller’s War Plan Orange; a similar continuity can be

found in tactical plans and doctrine.4 Although the relatively high speed and

flexibility of carrier task forces gave them operational maneuverability signifi-

cantly greater than that of the battleship formations that preceded them, the ba-

sic tactical principles that the Navy employed in its battle doctrines remained

unchanged.

The changes were confined to the method of applying and distributing these

principles. Two important factors combined to temper the prewar concepts and

produce a new approach. The first was the flexibility afforded by carrier task

forces and the way they could concentrate against multiple targets simulta-

neously or against a single target without becoming a single target themselves.

The second factor was wartime experience. By late 1942, the Navy’s prewar ap-

proach to the development and dissemination of tactical doctrine had shown se-

rious flaws. Ships and men were going into battle without the proper

indoctrination, limiting their effectiveness.5 A new approach was needed; the

Navy’s Pacific Fleet was the first to synthesize all three elements: the necessity of

a new approach to tactical doctrine, the challenge introduced by fast carrier task

forces, and existing prewar doctrinal concepts. These were married together by

new tactical manuals, new fleet organizations, and refined battle plans. Together,

these elements enabled success in the rapid string of offensives that moved

through the Central Pacific, returned American forces to the Philippines, and

crushed Japan as a naval power.

OFFENSIVE IN THE CENTRAL PACIFIC

In early 1943, the Pacific War was entering a new phase. The Pacific Fleet, under

Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, had defeated the Japanese in the attritional struggle

for Guadalcanal and forced them onto the strategic defensive. It was essential

that Nimitz’s forces seize the opportunity afforded by their success and begin a

strategic offensive, if they were to maintain the initiative.6

The Central Pacific would be the objective of the new offensive. Before the war,

both sides had recognized the strategic importance of the Marshall, Caroline, and

Mariana island groups, collectively known as the Mandates.7 The islands occupied

a central position and provided numerous bases. The Navy could use these to sup-

port further offensives in the direction of the Philippines, Formosa, or Japan itself.

It was estimated that the seizure of the Mandates would “make available . . . ap-

proximately 20 airfields, 15 seaplane bases, 8 submarine bases, and 10 fleet an-

chorages.”8 Accordingly, in June 1943 Nimitz was directed by the Joint Chiefs of

6 8 N A V A L W A R C O L L E G E R E V I E W

2

Naval War College Review, Vol. 62 [2009], No. 1, Art. 7

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol62/iss1/7

Staff (JCS) to develop a plan to penetrate the Japanese perimeter; the initial tar-

get would be the Marshall Islands.9

The campaign plan Nimitz and his staff developed stressed two specific oper-

ational goals—a rapid pace of operations that would pressure the Japanese and

keep the initiative firmly within the Pacific Fleet’s grasp, and a decisive show-

down with the Japanese fleet. GRANITE, as the plan was code-named, stressed

both of these objectives, emphasizing the need to maintain “unremitting pres-

sure against Japan” and seeking the destruction of “the Japanese Fleet at an early

date.”10

The fast pace of operations presented several challenges. It would be neces-

sary to keep the striking arm of the fleet in forward areas almost continuously;

this required a new approach to logistics.11 Increased tempo also required a new

approach to the development and dissemination of tactical doctrine. The pre-

war concept of a fleet that would move through the Pacific as a cohesive unit had

to be discarded.12 To sustain the rapid pace of operations, individual ships and

small task units would have to be interchangeable. They would have to move out

of forward areas without disrupting the pace of the offensive; they would have to

move into the combat zone and be effective immediately; and they could not be

expected to spend adequate time training with their cohorts. Further exacerbat-

ing these issues was the need for ships of the Pacific Fleet to support two major

offensives in two theaters simultaneously.13 A new tactical manual, Current Tac-

tical Orders and Doctrine, U.S. Pacific Fleet, known as PAC 10, would help resolve

these issues.

Victory in a major fleet action is commonly assumed to have been a tactical

objective of the Pacific Fleet, but the GRANITE plan illustrates that it was a strate-

gic goal.14 “All operations will be conducted as to maintain maximum readiness

to take advantage of opportunities to bring important enemy naval forces to ac-

tion.”15 The Japanese fleet was a credible fighting force, and so long as it could

sortie and threaten the success of an amphibious operation, it would limit the

Pacific Fleet’s freedom of maneuver. Operational and tactical plans had to ac-

count for this contingency. Thus GRANITE assumed that “a major fleet action, al-

though it may delay amphibious operations for a brief period, will greatly

accelerate them thereafter.”16

The movement into the Mandates was expected to draw out the Japanese fleet

and enable its destruction. Every subsidiary operation plan to GRANITE—in-

cluding GALVANIC for the invasion of the Gilberts, FLINTLOCK and CATCHPOLE

for the Marshalls, HAILSTONE for Truk, LONGHOP for Manus, and FORAGER for

the Marianas—therefore had to account for the possible opportunity of decisive

action. Tactical and operational plans were developed to meet this contingency.

H O N E 6 9

3



PREWAR EXPERIENCE AND DOCTRINE

The Navy’s existing tactical doctrine provided a backdrop for offensive prepara-

tions. Sophisticated and nuanced after refinement in the interwar period, this

doctrine emphasized major fleet action and relied on several fundamental prin-

ciples, including tactical concentration and coordinated action against the

enemy.17

The doctrine’s set of “major tactics,” those for a large fleet in battle, were thor-

ough and flexible; they covered a variety of contingencies apart from the main

fleet action. Cruisers and destroyers were drilled in “night search and attack”

procedures, designed to locate and damage an enemy battle fleet the night before

a battle.18 Battle-line aircraft carriers operated with the battle fleet, providing air

cover for the battleships and fleet train.19 Independent carrier task forces per-

formed reconnaissance and targeted their opposite numbers to establish aerial

superiority. Submarines scouted ahead and attacked enemy surface vessels.20

But the main emphasis of major tactics was the complex ballet of a battle-line

action. Battle plans emphasized the cooperation of all fleet units to destroy the

main objective—the enemy battle line. The publication of Tentative Fleet Dispo-

sitions and Battle Plans, 1930 introduced a new level of complexity and coordi-

nation.21 For the first time, the Navy had standard plans to govern the entire fleet

in action. The new plans were further refined by General Tactical Instructions,

United States Navy (FTP 142) in 1934 and by General Tactical Instructions,

United States Navy (FTP 188) in 1940.

Battle plans were designated by a system of coded numbers and letters. The

first number would determine the overall type of action to be fought. A normal

action on similar courses—that is, with the Navy’s battle line steaming in the


FIGURE 1TYPICAL BATTLE FORMATION

Source: Operation Plan 12-44, p. J-I-7.Note: DD = destroyer, DesRon = destoyer squadron; Deg = degrees relative to enemy bearing.

4



same direction as that of the enemy—was indicated by 1. The numeral 2 indi-

cated a reverse action, with the Navy’s battle line moving in the opposite direc-

tion and chasing the enemy’s tail. Reverse actions were believed to offer

significant advantages, because the Japanese were expected to put fast and pow-

erful forces in the van of their line; if the battle moved away from them, their ef-

fectiveness would be reduced.22 Other numbers were used for more complex

situations.23 After the number followed a letter that prescribed a specific range

band: E indicated a fight at extreme range, twenty-seven thousand yards and

above; L signified long range, twenty-one to twenty-seven thousand yards; M

was for medium range, seventeen to twenty-one thousand yards; and C meant

close range, seventeen thousand yards and below. Other letters provided details

on the use of supporting forces.24 Common plans, such as “1L,” a normal action

at long range, and “2M,” a reverse action at medium range, were described in

detail.25

All these scripted plans assumed the same basic battle formation, a focused

concentration of offensive power. Battleships were positioned in the center, with

their broadsides facing the enemy (see figure 1); light forces—groups of cruisers

and destroyers—were positioned on either flank. A group of destroyers was gen-

erally retained with the battle line to provide close protection against enemy de-

stroyers and submarines. Carriers and ships of the fleet train would position

themselves on the far side of the battle line from the enemy.26 The intent was to

allow all elements of the fleet to cooperate, to fight as a unit toward the common

goal of destroying the enemy battle line.

Concentration of the battle fleet was particularly vital to success in a gunnery

action, and the battle formation reflected this. Although the range and accuracy

of battleship guns increased during the interwar period, battleships had to

group together to maximize their fighting power.27 Experiments during tactical

exercises were conducted with distributed formations, but results had repeat-

edly shown that dispersion invited defeat in detail. Accordingly, concentration

had become a doctrinal tenet.28 A concentrated formation maximized the offen-

sive power of not only the battle line but also the other fighting units that made

up the battle fleet.

The lessons of the interwar period had also led to an emphasis on combined

arms—coordinated attacks on the enemy formation by all elements of the fleet,

including battleships, destroyers, and airplanes.29 For a time submarines and

minelayers were even considered important elements of a major fleet action.30

All available weapons were to be used in concert. Admiral Harris Laning, writing

in his 1933 pamphlet on fleet action, emphasized this point: “With so many

weapons carried on such different types of ships it is apparent that if we are to

get the maximum effect of all weapons and make our blow the sum total of the

H O N E 7 1

5



blows of all, there must be perfect coordination between the types carrying

them.”31

The effectiveness of each individual attack, then, was expected to be increased

by coordination with other types. This was particularly true of attacks by air-

planes and destroyers; under normal circumstances enemy battleships were be-

lieved capable of thwarting them through a combination of defensive fire and

maneuver, but when combined with battleship gunfire, aircraft and destroyers

were considered to be far more effective.32 Coordinated attacks using planes, de-

stroyers, and the guns of battleships were a recurring feature of the Navy’s Fleet

Problems and tactical exercises. The idea of using aircraft and surface ships in

concert to destroy an enemy fleet became an essential feature of the Navy’s plans

for decisive battle.33

Submarines were another important element of the Navy’s plans in the inter-

war period. They had long been considered for use in major actions, but the spe-

cifics of how they were to be employed had not been resolved. Early plans had

envisioned using them as a tactical scouting force for the fleet, sailing ahead to

report on and attack approaching enemy ships.34 This proved difficult to imple-

ment; submarines were too slow. In general, their usefulness in fleet operations

proved limited. Wartime commanders would adopt a new solution.

WARTIME LESSONS

Opportunities for the employment of “major tactics” were lacking in the two

years following Pearl Harbor. The combat that did occur—furious battles of

light forces and long-range carrier duels—revealed flaws in the Navy’s prewar

approach to the development and dissemination of tactical doctrine.

Minor Tactics

In contrast to preparations for decisive battle, “minor tactics”—those that

would govern the employment of smaller forces—were neglected before the war.

Very limited doctrinal guidance was provided for minor actions at the fleet level.

Instead, individual squadron and task force commanders were expected to de-

velop combat doctrines and battle plans themselves for the employment of their

forces.35

This mechanism worked well under prewar conditions, when formations

were cohesive and had time to drill under individual commanders. Where these

circumstances held in wartime, the Navy’s light forces were effective in battle.

The performances of Commander Paul H. Talbot’s Destroyer Division 59 at

Balikpapan and Rear Admiral Norman Scott’s Task Force (TF) 64 at Cape

Esperance are worthy examples. In both these cases, the forces involved were fa-

miliar with their commanders’ doctrines and were able to practice together


6



before going into action.36 In the latter half of 1942, however, combat losses, the

pace of operations in the Pacific, and the demands of a two-ocean war made this

increasingly difficult. The climactic battles for Guadalcanal in November 1942

saw ships thrown together in haste; commanders had no time to develop com-

mon doctrine or plans, and the resulting losses were severe.37 It became obvious

that the development of “minor tactics”could not be left to commanders at sea.

The Pacific Fleet’s initial approach to addressing this problem was inade-

quate. “Tactical bulletins” and “confidential letters” on specific topics were pro-

duced and distributed to fleet units. These documents modified, enhanced, or

introduced procedures that reflected lessons of combat and experience with new

tactics and techniques. They covered a variety of topics—major action plans,

night battle tactics, the use of radar, and the introduction of the Combat Infor-

mation Center. Their proliferation, however, led to redundancy and inconsis-

tency.38 By 1943, war experience had shown that a comprehensive revision of

tactical manuals was necessary.

Carrier War

The Navy’s carrier battle doctrine was effective enough to allow operational, if

not tactical, success in all the major carrier battles of 1942. However, lessons

from combat illustrated that improvement was necessary, particularly in the co-

ordination of multiple carriers within a single formation.39 The Navy had lim-

ited experience with task forces containing multiple carriers. For much of the

interwar period, the Navy had had only two large carriers for experiments and

exercises, Lexington and Saratoga. During Fleet Problems, they were regularly

placed on opposite sides; when teamed together, they operated in independent

task groups or were tied to the battle line.40

Technological factors also contributed to the Navy’s lack of experience in this

respect. Before the advent of radar and effective fighter-direction techniques,

carriers were best protected by keeping them hidden. A carrier that had been lo-

cated could be struck and rendered inoperable by an enemy attack. Dispersing

carriers into separate strike forces, away from the main body and each other, was

a logical defensive measure.41 The war and the advance of technology changed

the situation. Improved radars to detect incoming strikes and more effective

techniques for vectoring fighters to intercept them allowed groups of carriers to

pool resources and offer mutual support. The Navy’s carrier task force doctrine

was revised on the basis of these developments and of lessons from the 1942 bat-

tles. Single-carrier formations were abandoned; task forces were formed around

multiple carriers operating together.42

Even more fundamental changes would occur. Fast carrier task forces became

the basis of the offensive power of the Pacific Fleet. The shift to carrier task

H O N E 7 3

7



forces and away from a battle fleet offered opportunities. For instance, because

each of the carrier task forces could operate independently, it was possible to dis-

perse them and strike multiple targets simultaneously. This would help achieve

one of the major operational goals of the offensive, a rapid tempo. However, this

was not without risk; carriers were still considered vulnerable to surface action,

and they needed support during their thrusts into the enemy’s defensive perim-

eter.43 The new, fast battleships were ideally suited to provide this support, and

they would be made part of the carrier task forces.

The dispersal of battleship strength, however, ran counter to the principle of

concentration the Navy had emphasized for decades. It introduced the risk that a

lone carrier task force might be isolated and destroyed; it also made it essential

that the carrier task forces concentrate prior to major fleet action in order to

bring the battleships together. Thus, although dispersal enabled the rapid pace

of operations, it hindered the second goal, the need to bring the Japanese fleet to

decisive action. An approach that balanced the two factors was necessary.

THE NEW APPROACH

A combination of approaches was used to satisfy the operational goals of the

Central Pacific offensive. New fleetwide tactical manuals were developed that

covered “minor tactics” and the operations of small task forces; the common

doctrines they established allowed for the interchangeability of ships and task

units demanded by the rapid operational tempo. Operation plans called for the

seizure of multiple objectives but also acknowledged the need to concentrate for

decisive action. Tactical plans emphasizing concerted action against the enemy

prepared the Navy for the expected battles. Together, these methods ensured the

success of the offensive in the Central Pacific.

In April 1943, Nimitz created a board to revise the Pacific Fleet Cruising In-

structions. The officers of the board were ordered to review current doctrinal

publications, examine combat reports, interview officers returning from com-

bat zones, and produce a new set of cruising instructions.44 They would in fact

exceed this authority. By drawing on operational goals of the coming campaign,

existing principles of the Navy’s doctrine, and doctrinal flaws exposed by war-

time experience, the board produced a new doctrinal manual for the Pacific

Fleet, and the most important one issued by the wartime Navy.

Although carrier airpower would dominate the coming offensive, Nimitz

chose three surface officers for the board and only one aviator. The senior mem-

ber, Rear Admiral Robert M. Griffin, was an experienced surface warfare officer

(as they are known today). He left the board before it completed its work, going

on to command Battleship Division 3.45 Captain Roscoe F. Good became senior

member with Griffin’s departure; later in the war he would command the


8



battleship Washington.46 Captain E. M. Crouch replaced Griffin.47 As com-

mander of Destroyer Division 57, Crouch had survived the initial Japanese of-

fensives in the South Pacific.48 The aviator was Captain Apollo Soucek, who had

served with distinction on the carrier Hornet and at the time of its loss had been

its executive officer.49 It was their labors that would produce Current Tactical Or-

ders and Doctrine, U.S. Pacific Fleet, PAC 10.

PAC 10, issued in June 1943, provided what the Navy had been missing—a

common set of tactical principles for the cooperation of small forces and de-

tached units in battle. It corrected the underemphasis on “minor tactics,” grant-

ing them the same detailed treatment that major actions had received for over a

decade.50 The coded system of letters and numbers used for major actions was

recycled and applied to small task forces. Compact battle formations developed

specifically for combat by such forces were presented.51 Existing battle forma-

tions for light forces in night combat were retained.52

Instead of having to create and distribute their own tactical doctrines, small

task group commanders could now develop battle plans rapidly, having a com-

mon doctrine to which they could refer. This streamlined the process, relieved

small-unit commanders of an unnecessary burden, and ensured a common

approach.53

Now, new ships could familiarize themselves with PAC 10 as they prepared to

join the fleet and, because the manual applied to all task forces in all Pacific com-

bat zones, it became possible to move ships from group to group or theater to

theater without reequipping them with lengthy instructions by their new com-

manders. This was an extremely important development, and it was stressed in

the manual’s introduction.

PAC-10 is intended . . . to obviate necessity for . . . special instructions under ordi-

nary circumstances and to minimize them in extraordinary circumstances. The ulti-

mate aim is to obtain essential uniformity without unacceptable sacrifice of

flexibility. It must be possible for forces composed of diverse types, and indoctrinated

under different task force commanders, to join at sea on short notice for concerted

action against the enemy without exchanging a mass of special instructions.54

Successors to PAC 10 built upon the foundation that the original provided. In

February 1944, the U.S. Fleet followed the lead of its Pacific arm and issued Cur-

rent Tactical Orders and Doctrine, U.S. Fleet, known as USF 10A.55 USF 10A built

directly upon PAC 10: its format, structure, and the majority of its contents were

unchanged from the Pacific Fleet’s publication.56 Although its title implied that it

was an amendment of the prewar USF 10, Current Tactical Orders and Doctrine,

United States Fleet, the new manual shared very little with its predecessor and

H O N E 7 5

9




provided far more tactical detail.57 A revision, USF 10B, followed in May 1945,

introducing additional wartime lessons.58

THE OFFENSIVE BEGINS

With PAC 10 the fleet solved two significant problems. First, as noted, the cre-

ation of a single, common doctrine allowed ships to be interchanged between

task groups, and this in turn enabled the rapid operational tempo Nimitz de-

sired. Second, shifting the development of small-unit tactical doctrine to the

fleet level and out of the hands of individual commanders increased the effec-

tiveness of all units, particularly the fast-moving carrier task forces. Tactical and

operational plans for the coming offensive were built on this foundation.

GALVANIC

Although the JCS directive ordered the seizure of positions in the Marshalls,

Nimitz considered a thrust directly into the island group too dangerous. Too lit-

tle was known about Japanese positions; experience had demonstrated the im-

portance of reconnaissance before amphibious landings, and the Marshalls were

too far away for land-based planes to photograph the targets.59 An intermediate

objective was needed. Nimitz and his planners chose the Gilbert island group,

formerly a British possession, recently seized by the Japanese. The code name for

the operation was GALVANIC.

Nimitz’s Central Pacific Force, augmented by ever-growing numbers of new

ships and aircraft, was by November 1943 ready to begin major offensive opera-

tions. Vice Admiral Raymond A. Spruance had assumed command on 5

August.60 The relative inexperience of the growing fleet had made a comprehen-

sive doctrine for tactical operations imperative. Most of the ships of the force

were new, the majority of their officers were reservists, and many of the men had

never been to sea before.61 These ships could not operate as a cohesive unit with-

out a doctrine to guide them, particularly if the Japanese sought a fleet action.

The possibility of fleet action heavily influenced plans for GALVANIC. The Cen-

tral Pacific Force would seize three atolls: Tarawa, Makin, and Abemama. Posses-

sion of these would guarantee American dominance of the Gilbert Islands and

provide airfields from which to reconnoiter and attack the Marshalls. Although

long-range bombers and reconnaissance aircraft could reach the Gilberts, the ex-

treme range forced Spruance to provide direct air support for the invasion forces

with his fast carrier task forces.62 This severely limited the carriers’ freedom of

maneuver. In prewar exercises, combat forces caught while supporting amphibi-

ous assaults had been damaged by attritional raids and then defeated by major

attacks.63 At Savo Island, the Japanese had reinforced these lessons by decimat-

ing an Allied covering force.64 Japanese responses in the Central Pacific were ex-

pected to be even more powerful.65 Minor raids could be handled by the invasion

10



forces, using PAC 10 as a guide, but a major Japanese response would be a serious

threat.66

Spruance’s GALVANIC plan accounted for this possibility. The main objectives

would be seized simultaneously, Tarawa by the Southern Attack Force and

Makin by the Northern. The atolls were expected to be occupied before the Japa-

nese could mount a major response.67 Simultaneous attacks divided his forces,

but the best defense against the threat of attack in the middle of an amphibious

operation was to overwhelm the objectives quickly, granting the fleet freedom to

maneuver; this also satisfied the desire for a rapid operational tempo.

The potential for a major action was very real. Powerful Japanese forces based

at Truk in the Caroline Islands could quickly move into the Marshalls and chal-

lenge the invasion. Estimates suggested that the Japanese could oppose the at-

tack with ten battleships, seven aircraft carriers, and supporting forces.68

“Current Intelligence indicates the presence of the major portion of the Japa-

nese Fleet in the Truk area at the present time. Whether this fleet can or will be

used to interfere with GALVANIC we do not know. . . . [W]e must be prepared at

all times during GALVANIC for a fleet engagement.”69

Over a hundred miles separated Tarawa and Makin; the forces covering the

assaults were too far apart to provide mutual support, unless Spruance had

timely warning of a Japanese approach. He was extremely apprehensive that a

powerful attack would fall on a portion of his force and defeat it in detail. Of the

two island objectives, Makin was closer to the Marshalls and much more vulner-

able to a Japanese response. Spruance expected air searches to give him adequate

warning and allow concentration of the Central Pacific Force. If weather pat-

terns were unfavorable, however, storm systems could prevent aerial searches in

the direction of the Mandates; Spruance considered delaying the attack on

Makin if such circumstances developed.70

Even if they did not, however, the forces around Makin had to be ready to de-

fend themselves. Spruance placed significantly more firepower in his northern

groups. The old battleships in the Northern Attack Force, Idaho, Mississippi, and

New Mexico, had been extensively modified before the war and were the most

powerful of the old battleships available.71 In addition, all six fast battleships

supporting the operation were near Makin, evenly divided between the carrier

task group providing direct support to the attack and the “interceptor” carrier

group.72 The latter, under the direct command of Rear Admiral Charles A.

Pownall, Spruance’s carrier force commander, was positioned to intercept Japa-

nese aerial attacks and provide early warning of enemy forces approaching from

the Marshalls.73 Spruance urged these carrier groups to remain concentrated:

“Carrier Task Groups which are screened by fast battleships and are supporting

the attack on Makin and covering our northern flank will . . . be operated in as

H O N E 7 7

11



close tactical support as possible of each other and the combatant units of the

Northern Attack Force.”74

If the Japanese sought battle, the nine battleships in the north could separate

from their task groups and unite to form a powerful battle line under Rear Ad-

miral Willis A. Lee.75 But this was not Spruance’s desired approach. He wanted a

margin of superiority over his foe, and his battle plan called for the entire Cen-

tral Pacific Force to come together to counter any major Japanese move.76 Three

old battleships and additional ships supporting the landing at Tarawa would

join the forces around Makin, giving Spruance a battle fleet of twelve battleships,

nine heavy cruisers, three light cruisers, and twenty-eight destroyers.77 It is im-

portant to emphasize that this battle fleet drew not only from the fast carrier

groups but also from the invasion forces. As it would form on the spot, common

doctrine would be essential.

Spruance’s GALVANIC plan emphasized the importance of destroying the Jap-

anese fleet, and it echoed the goal of the GRANITE campaign.

If . . . a major portion of the Japanese Fleet were to attempt to interfere with GAL-

VANIC, it is obvious that the defeat of the enemy fleet would at once become para-

mount. Without having inflicted such a defeat on the enemy, we would be unable to

proceed with the capture and development of Makin, Tarawa, and Apamama [sic].

The destruction of a considerable portion of Japanese naval strength would . . . go far

toward winning the war.78

In fact, the Japanese too anticipated a major fleet action. Prior to GALVANIC,

when Central Pacific carrier task forces had raided Tarawa, Makin, and Wake Is-

land, Admiral Mineichi Koga, commander in chief of the Combined Fleet, cor-

rectly anticipated that these actions signaled the start of an offensive. Twice—in

September and again in October—he moved the bulk of his forces from his main

base at Truk to Eniwetok in the Marshalls, ready to counter Spruance. Each time,

when the expected offensive did not occur, Koga returned to Truk.79 By the time

of the landings on 20 November, Koga was no longer prepared. In late October,

faced with a threat to his southern flank by Allied advances toward Bougainville,

Koga reinforced the bastion of Rabaul.80 He sent his carrier squadrons there,

along with most of his cruiser forces.81 Nimitz’s rapid operational tempo was de-

livering results. Frequent raids had kept the Japanese guessing about where the

first blow would fall, and, pressured on two fronts, they chose to reinforce their

southern flank. When Spruance moved into the Gilberts, stripped of its air

squadrons and cruiser scouts, there was little the Combined Fleet could do. The

looked-for decisive action did not materialize.


12



FLINTLOCK

With the success of GALVANIC, attention quickly shifted to the Marshalls. The

important question was how best to continue the rapid pace of the offensive and

quickly neutralize Japanese positions in the island group. The essential initial

objective was an airfield that could support bombers; there were bomber air-

fields on Wotje and Maloelap in the eastern portion of the Marshalls. A phased

approach, breaking the capture of the Marshalls into eastern and western opera-

tions, was considered and endorsed by the JCS.82 Nimitz and his planners re-

jected this idea; they did not want the offensive to degenerate into an attritional

struggle like the fighting in the Solomons.

As plans for the Marshalls were refined, concurrent raids struck Japanese po-

sitions; PAC 10 facilitated these minor operations.83 Lee’s fast battleships were

detached from the carrier task forces and moved to the South Pacific; along the

way, they bombarded the Japanese base on Nauru, west of the Gilberts. Pownall

led two of his carrier groups into the heart of the Marshalls, attacking the

Kwajalein and Wotje atolls. Raids like these sustained the operational tempo.

Pownall’s strikes destroyed planes, sank ships, and damaged installations, but

their most valuable achievement was a photograph of a large airstrip the Japa-

nese were constructing on Kwajalein Island. This proved what none had ex-

pected, that a bomber airfield could be built on Kwajalein.84

Plans to capture the Marshalls in one operation were quickly finalized.

Kwajalein, the centerpiece of the Japanese defensive position, would be seized;

the eastern Marshalls would be isolated and left to wither on the vine.

FLINTLOCK, as the operation was code-named, required three attack forces. The

first two would strike Kwajalein; the northern element would assault the twin is-

lands of Roi-Namur, while the southern would capture Kwajalein Island, on the

southern end of the atoll. The third force would occupy undefended Majuro

Atoll, which would become a local anchorage for assault forces, and be an opera-

tional reserve. The reserves would be held ready to assist in the capture of

Kwajalein; if not needed there, they would take part in Operation CATCHPOLE,

the assault on Eniwetok.85

The fast carrier task forces, now designated TF 58, had a new commander for

FLINTLOCK, Rear Admiral Marc A. Mitscher. As in GALVANIC, they had to oper-

ate in direct support of the assault forces, but the previous approach of teaming a

carrier task force to an assault objective was discarded. Pinning carriers to physi-

cal objectives restricted their mobility, and the decision had been criticized.86

Mitscher would operate his carriers offensively in the Marshalls, rotating be-

tween supporting landings and neutralizing Japanese air bases.87 Two of these

carrier groups were kept near the main objectives at Kwajalein Atoll, close

enough to concentrate quickly for mutual support. On 29 January 1944, Task

H O N E 7 9

13



Groups (TGs) 58.2 and 58.3 attacked Kwajalein. The next day, TG 58.1 replaced

TG 58.3, and the latter moved to Eniwetok, farther to the west and closer to Truk.

These relative positions were held until TG 58.3 retired to fuel on 3 February.88

The use of TG 58.3 as the advanced guard was deliberate. That group con-

tained the two newest battleships, Iowa and New Jersey. The fastest and most

powerful in the fleet, these two battleships constituted Battleship Division 7.

Their high speed, over 32.5 knots, allowed them to keep pace with the fast carri-

ers.89 With Battleship Division 7, TG 58.3 could outfight any enemy surface force

it could not outrun. If a major Japanese counterattack ensued, the task group

would fall back on Kwajalein. The remaining six fast battleships were divided

evenly between TGs 58.1 and 58.2.

Major action was once again anticipated. This was the first advance into the

Mandates, which were known to be an important element of Japanese defensive

strategy. In prewar plans, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel had expected to entice

the Japanese to battle in the Central Pacific by threatening their position in the

Marshalls.90 Now Nimitz expected to do the same with the much larger and

more powerful Central Pacific Force.

Spruance’s battle plan for FLINTLOCK again called for the concentration of all

fifteen available battleships, new and old, into a single battle line.91 Supporting

units would be drawn from both the invasion fleet and the carrier groups. To

guide the fleet in battle, Spruance planned to employ major action plans from

FTP 188.92 These provided a mutually understood frame of reference and re-

quired the minimum of signaling—though if necessary, Spruance would de-

velop his own battle plans and distribute them by signal.93 Admiral Lee would

command the battle line, as before.94

CATCHPOLE and HAILSTONE

The anticipated Japanese response to FLINTLOCK did not occur. Majuro,

Roi-Namur, and Kwajalein were all seized without interference from Japanese

surface units. The reserve force moved to Eniwetok, initiating Operation

CATCHPOLE. Admiral Spruance set his sights on the Combined Fleet. Aerial re-

connaissance of Truk showed that major elements of the Japanese fleet were in

the Carolines. A powerful attack, HAILSTONE, was planned to cover the land-

ings at Eniwetok by neutralizing Truk and destroying any forces encoun-

tered.95 If the Japanese fleet did not come out to fight, Spruance would take the

fight to it.

Unlike previous major operations involving the fast carriers, HAILSTONE

did not have an amphibious component; CATCHPOLE was a separate operation.

HAILSTONE, however, was not just a raid but a deliberate attempt to destroy a

large portion of the Combined Fleet. All the fast battleships were concentrated


14



into a single carrier group, TG 58.3, ready to deploy quickly and engage the en-

emy in the anticipated fleet action. The old battleships were left behind.96

By the time of the initial air strikes on 17 February 1944, the Japanese had

withdrawn their heavy units from Truk, but a large amount of shipping was dis-

covered and attacked in the lagoon. When a group of Japanese light forces at-

tempted to escape through the northern passage, Spruance detached a

high-speed surface striking force, TG 50.9, to intercept. Battleship Division 7

formed its core; two heavy cruisers and four destroyers were attached in

support.97 This was the first employment of the new battleship division in a role

that would often be assigned to it—pursuit and destruction of enemy ships.98

The high speed of the battleships made them especially well suited for it, and on

this occasion they were able to destroy four Japanese ships; a lone destroyer

escaped.

The creation and detachment of ad hoc units like this, with no opportunity to

train together, had produced unfortunate results fifteen months before off

Guadalcanal.99 PAC 10 and the recently issued USF 10A had made an important

difference, enabling tactical commanders to seize opportunities presented by

the rapid operational tempo.

The ships of TG 50.9 were not the only ones waiting to strike Japanese crip-

ples. Ten submarines had been sent to prowl the waters around Truk in concert

with the operation.100 On 16 February Skate sighted and torpedoed the cruiser

Agano, sinking it. The submarine’s place in the decisive battle had been found. In

future operations commanders ashore would strategically position submarines

to provide distant reconnaissance and to attack targets of opportunity.

Additional carrier raids followed. After the successful strike on Truk and the

enemy withdrawal from the Carolines, Spruance was free to range deeper into

the Japanese defensive system. On 23 February 1944, TF 58 struck Japanese air

bases in the Marianas, attacking the islands of Guam, Saipan, Tinian, and Rota.

On the last day of March and first of April, the fast carriers hit Palau and Yap. The

rapid pace of operations emphasized in the GRANITE plan was being sustained,

and it was keeping the pressure on the Japanese.

DESECRATE II

The invasion of Hollandia on the northern coast of New Guinea was a southwest

Pacific operation, not a Central Pacific one, but the JCS had decreed that the fast

carriers would support it.101 Seizure of the Japanese base complex between

Tanahmerah and Humboldt bays would provide General Douglas MacArthur’s

Southwest Pacific Force with an ideal position from which to further its advance

along the northern coast of the island.102 Admiral Nimitz remained, however, fo-

cused on the destruction of the Japanese Combined Fleet, the primary aim of

H O N E 8 1

15



GRANITE. On 23 March, during a visit to Brisbane, he emphasized the Navy’s pri-

orities to the general and made it clear that if the Japanese came out to fight,

their fleet would become the primary objective of the fast carrier force.103

The participation of TF 58 in the operation was code-named DESECRATE II.

Mitscher was in command. (Spruance and the Central Pacific Force’s amphibi-

ous elements remained behind, preparing for the invasion of the Marianas.) As

in FLINTLOCK, the fast carriers were to provide direct support to the assault

forces and suppress nearby Japanese airfields. Mitscher used three carrier task

groups: TG 58.1, which had no battleships, would range to the west and attack

Japanese airfields at Wakde, Sawar, and Sarmi;104 TG 58.2, with the two fast bat-

tleships of Battleship Division 7, was to support the landings in Humboldt Bay;

and TG 58.3, with four other fast battleships, would cover the landings in

Tanahmerah Bay.

This arrangement positioned the bulk of Mitscher’s surface striking power in

the center, facilitating concentration if the Japanese appeared in force. Should a

powerful battle fleet be required for a major action, six battleships, ten heavy

cruisers, three light cruisers, and twenty-two destroyers were to concentrate un-

der Admiral Lee; a carrier group, TG 58.1, would operate in direct support, un-

der Lee’s command.105 In battle, Lee expected to leverage plans and dispositions

from FTP 188 and USF 10A.106 The remaining two carrier groups, stripped of the

bulk of their escorts, would remain under Mitscher’s command and operate in

distant support.107

Two additional plans were developed, for minor action, should the Japanese

challenge with small forces. One teamed Lee’s six battleships with two destroyer

squadrons.108 The other was a pursuit force built around Battleship Division 7,

very similar to TG 50.9, which Spruance had sent around Truk; this time, the two

fast battleships would be matched with two heavy cruisers and seven destroyers.

Their preferred battle plan was “1E2,” from USF 10A—an engagement on paral-

lel courses at extreme range, with light forces on both flanks operating

defensively.109

DECISIVE BATTLE

By June 1944, Japanese bases in the Marshalls and Carolines had been seized or

neutralized, the major base at Rabaul had been rendered untenable, and the Al-

lies were rapidly advancing along the northern coast of New Guinea. It seemed

as if the Japanese were content to let their defensive perimeter crumble without

risking major fleet units, but this was about to change.


16



FORAGER

The third major offensive of Spruance’s force, officially designated the Fifth

Fleet on 29 April 1944, was the seizure of the Marianas. Operation FORAGER

comprised the capture of Saipan, Tinian, and Guam. Saipan would be attacked

first, on 15 June; landings on Guam were initially scheduled for three days later.

The assault on Tinian would follow, but the specific date remained flexible.110

Because the capture of the Marshalls and Carolines had not produced a fleet ac-

tion, the “prevailing opinion . . . was that the Japanese navy would not fight for

the Marianas.”111

But Spruance had to be prepared for that contingency, and his battle plan for

the Marianas changed little from those developed for earlier operations.112 As

before, he expected to concentrate all his battleships into one formation; seven

old ones supporting the amphibious assaults were to combine with seven fast

battleships from the carrier groups to give a total of fourteen. Supporting ships

would be drawn from the carrier task groups and assault forces. Concentration

and employment of his entire force remained fundamental elements of

Spruance’s plan.113 Concentration was also still a guiding principle of the em-

ployment of the fast battleships specifically: “In acting as a covering force have

[carrier] task groups which are screened by fast battleships operate in as close

tactical support of each other as the nature of their tasks and enemy action will

permit.”114

The increasing number of escort carriers in the invasion forces allowed the

primary focus of the fast carriers to become the suppression of enemy air bases,

rather than direct air support for the invasion. The plan called for the carriers to

start their attacks three days before the landings, but this date was advanced a

day, because of the “large estimated strength of enemy aircraft in the

Marianas.”115 On June 11, planes from Mitscher’s TF 58 struck Japanese posi-

tions on Saipan, Tinian, Guam, Rota, and Pagan. These attacks continued for the

next two days.

The carriers operated in four task groups: TG 58.1 attacked Guam, and the

other three hit Saipan and Tinian. The fast battleships were kept concentrated;

TG 58.2 contained the two high-speed battleships of Battleship Division 7, TG

58.3 the other five fast battleships. Finally, TGs 58.1 and 58.4 were supported by

cruisers.116 The night before the landings, these two groups were sent north to at-

tack the islands of Chichi Jima and Iwo Jima. The two other groups, with their

battleships, remained to cover the landing beaches and assault forces.

In the meantime, the Japanese had resolved to contest the landings. On 12

June, having received word of the strikes in the Marianas, the new commander

in chief of the Combined Fleet, Admiral Soemu Toyoda, issued orders to execute

Operation A-GO, his plan for a major fleet action. Three days later, he made his

H O N E 8 3

17



intention explicit: “The Combined Fleet will attack the enemy in the Marianas

area and annihilate the invasion force. Activate A-Go Operation for decisive bat-

tle.”117 A powerful fleet was assembled under the command of Vice Admiral

Jisaburo Ozawa, including nine carriers, five battleships, and eleven heavy cruis-

ers.118 This force approached the Marianas in two main groups. The carriers and

three battleships, with Ozawa embarked, left their base at Tawi Tawi in the

southern Philippines and sailed through the archipelago, transiting the San

Bernardino Strait. A second force, with the large battleships Yamato and

Musashi, came north from Batjan in the Moluccas and rendezvoused with

Ozawa in the Philippine Sea.

Spruance received word of these movements from submarines and realized

that a major action was possible if the Japanese continued their approach.119

During the night of 14–15 June, he ordered TGs 58.1 and 58.4 to cut short their

attacks on Chichi Jima and Iwo Jima and return for a rendezvous near Saipan on

18 June. On 16 June, he postponed the invasion of Guam and held a conference

with Vice Admiral Richmond K. Turner, commander of the invasion force. The

two developed a plan of action to deal with the approaching threat.

Two aspects of the developing situation presented particular challenges for

Spruance. The battle for Saipan was still going on and limited his mobility; but

he had expected that the Japanese would strike before one or more of the islands

were secure all along.120 The fact that the Japanese were approaching in two dis-

tinct groups was a more significant problem. Spruance’s original plan had antic-

ipated that the Japanese might have two formations, a carrier group and an

advanced guard, but he had expected them to be within supporting distance.121

The sightings so far suggested instead two independent formations.

Therefore, rather than concentrating the entire Fifth Fleet as per the plan,

Spruance and Turner elected to strengthen TF 58 with five heavy cruisers, three

light cruisers, and twenty-one destroyers detached from the invasion forces. The

old battleships, three cruisers, and five destroyers were formed into a blocking

force and sent west of Saipan.122 This plan had two advantages: the blocking

force provided close cover for the Saipan beachhead, and TF 58 retained its mo-

bility by separating itself from the slower old battleships. On 17 June, in prepara-

tion for a surface action, Admiral Mitscher recommended detaching the

battleships entirely from the carrier task groups and placing them into a separate

formation.123 This would prevent the confusion that would inevitably result if

the battleships and their escorts had to form in the middle of an air battle.

Spruance concurred; the resulting TG 58.7 was placed under command of Ad-

miral Lee. It contained seven battleships, four heavy cruisers, and thirteen

destroyers.124


18



Spruance then issued his battle plan. It called for air strikes to disable the en-

emy carriers and surface action by the battle line: “Our air will knock out enemy

carriers . . . then will attack enemy battleships and cruisers to slow or disable

them. Task Group 58.7 will destroy enemy fleet either by fleet action if enemy

elects to fight or by sinking slowed or crippled ships if enemy retreats.”125

Early on 18 June, when TGs 58.1 and 58.4 were to rejoin, a new submarine

contact suggested the Japanese were close enough for a surface action that night.

Mitscher asked Lee if he desired a night action.126 Lee declined emphatically:

“Do not[,] repeat[,] do not believe we should seek night engagement.”127 Lee’s

response reflected both his own experience and the limited training of his com-

mand.128 He had fought and won a night battle and knew how quickly such an

action could degenerate into a melee, particularly if the forces involved lacked

cohesion.129 Lee’s formation, formed on the spot from four different task groups,

could operate together in daylight, by virtue of the common doctrines of USF

10A, but it was not prepared for night action.130 Lee’s comments after his earlier

battle provide clues as to his state of mind at this point: “Our battleships are nei-

ther designed nor armed for close range night actions with enemy light forces. A

few minutes intense fire . . . from secondary battery guns can, and did, render

one of our new battleships deaf, dumb, blind and impotent through destruction

of radar, radio and fire control circuits.”131

Soon after Lee responded, Spruance decided against night action.132 He did

not want to get too far from the forces at Saipan and risk defeat in detail. It is

likely that he also wanted to ensure the concentration of all elements of TF 58;

TGs 58.1 and 58.4 had not yet rejoined. In his response, Spruance mentioned

concern at the prospect of a “diversionary attack” on the flank.133 Most interpre-

tations take this to mean that Spruance worried that a Japanese southern force

would slip beyond him to raid the invasion beaches, but there is another possi-

bility.134 Captured Japanese planning material, which Spruance had reviewed,

discussed “flanking,” but in another context—attacking an opposing carrier

force after its attack planes had been committed to another, less important, tar-

get.135 The Japanese believed they had been flanked in this sense at Midway, in

that their carriers had been struck by surprise from an unanticipated direction

while preoccupied with attacking Midway Island.136 They hoped to do the same

to the Americans in future battles, and since Spruance had come into possession

of a Japanese document discussing this approach, it is likely that he expected to

face such tactics.137 This explains his preference for remaining concentrated and

not striking in force until the Japanese had shown their hand.

Spruance’s emphasis on concentration continued to influence the developing

action. He did not accept Mitscher’s recommendation to detach TG 58.1 and op-

erate it to the northwest in order to cut off Ozawa’s escape route to the home

H O N E 8 5

19



islands.138 When a direction-finding fix from Pearl Harbor on 18 June placed the

Japanese formation approximately 355 miles to the west, Mitscher recom-

mended closing at night to launch a morning strike and get the battleships into

position.139 Spruance again refused, citing the possibility of an “end run.”140

With that decision, the chance for a decisive action was lost.

The details of the ensuing battle are well known.141 The Japanese sent a series

of air strikes against TF 58, but none succeeded in causing major damage; their

losses in planes and pilots were tremendous. Unable to sustain the attacks,

Ozawa turned toward Japan and began to withdraw. Spruance pursued, and on

the evening of the next day a long-range strike succeeded in sinking the carrier

Hiyo, but Spruance again refused to detach task forces.142 Before the action, Vice

Admiral Charles A. Lockwood, commander of the Pacific Fleet’s submarines,

stationed four of his boats in a square surrounding the area in which he believed

Ozawa’s forces would operate. On 19 June, two of them found their targets. Alba-

core sighted and torpedoed Ozawa’s flagship, Taiho, just after it had completed

launching its first strike; eight hours later Taiho sank, destroyed by the fires that

ultimately resulted. In the interim, three torpedoes from Cavella sank carrier

Shokaku.143

The outcome in the battle of the Philippine Sea, however, was not decisive,

even when the successes of submarines are considered. The Japanese were

soundly defeated, but the majority of their fleet units, including most of their

carriers and all their battleships, withdrew to fight again. Nonetheless, the first

phase of the decisive naval battle of the Pacific War, the carrier duel, was over.

KING II

In the summer of 1944, in order to keep up the rapid pace of operations in the

Pacific, Admiral Nimitz developed a second command for the Central Pacific

Force, parallel to that of Spruance. The two flags and their respective staffs

would command the same ships, alternately directing an operation and plan-

ning their next, thereby allowing less time between offensives and increasing the

pressure on the Japanese. Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third

Fleet, was selected to be Spruance’s counterpart. When under Halsey’s com-

mand, the ships of the Central Pacific would be the Third Fleet; when Spruance

led them, they would once again become the Fifth Fleet.144

Halsey took Mitscher and the fast carriers, now TF 38, on a series of raids in

September 1944. They struck the Palaus, Mindanao, and the Visayas, covering

the invasions of Morotai, the Palaus, and Ulithi. The lack of resistance encoun-

tered convinced Halsey that the existing timetable for landings in the Philip-

pines could be accelerated. Within a matter of days, the JCS had approved the

new schedule.145


20



The invasion of Leyte, code-named KING II, differed from previous large am-

phibious operations. The unity of command that had existed in GALVANIC,

FLINTLOCK, and FORAGER was absent. The Central Pacific and southwestern Pa-

cific offensives met in the southern Philippines, and KING II used forces from

both theaters. Command was divided between the two, hindering effectiveness

and leading to confusion during the naval battles that resulted.146 Halsey’s Third

Fleet retained the fast carriers, but the Central Pacific Force’s amphibious units,

including the old battleships and escort carriers, were transferred to the Seventh

Fleet, under command of Vice Admiral Thomas C. Kinkaid, who was subordi-

nate to General MacArthur. Kinkaid led the amphibious assault.

As in FORAGER, the fast carriers were to suppress Japanese air bases and pro-

vide direct air support for the amphibious assault, but Halsey was freed of many

of the burdens his predecessor had faced in the Philippine Sea. Without the old

battleships and amphibious forces under his command, Halsey was able to de-

velop plans that took full advantage of the mobility of his task forces. He was also

free to seek out the Japanese; Nimitz’s plan for the operation stressed that “in

case opportunity for destruction of major portion of enemy fleet offers or can be

created, such destruction becomes the primary task.”147

Third Fleet battle plans stressed the importance of this task.148 They differed

from those of the Fifth Fleet in two important respects. Lacking the old battle-

ships, Halsey ignored them in his tactical planning and envisioned a battle line

composed of only fast battleships. This increased his flexibility, because all

forces in the battle fleet had sufficient speed to keep up with a carrier formation.

Halsey planned to capitalize on this with a well developed prewar technique.

Halsey planned a coordinated attack. He assumed that his four carrier

groups, far superior to what the Japanese could muster at this stage of the war,

would either win the opening carrier duel or sight the enemy too late in the day

for strike operations. In either case, the ensuing plan would be the same. Rather

than steaming away at night as Spruance had done, Halsey would approach and,

along the way, reorganize the carrier forces. Battleships, cruisers, and supporting

destroyers would leave their respective task groups and form TF 34, a battle for-

mation under the command of Admiral Lee, about seventy miles ahead of the

carriers. As morning approached, planes would ready and launch. The coordi-

nated movements of the fleet were designed to bring the attacking planes and

the battleships within range of the enemy at the same time, at dawn.149

Particular effort . . . will be made to gain a position from which a predawn carrier

strike may be launched concurrently with the release of fast heavy striking force from

a favorable attack position. Development of a favorable tactical situation . . . will be

effected by dispatching TF 34 and carrier air groups to attack the enemy. The ap-

proach will be so conducted as to give TF 34 an opportunity to strike from a

H O N E 8 7

21



favorable position and so coordinate its offensive efforts with those of carrier air

groups.150

Halsey considered this the “optimum plan for decisive action.”151 It would col-

lect nearly all the striking power of TF 38 into one decisive pulse and overwhelm

the Japanese. Halsey had revived the prewar coordinated attack.

The main landings took place on 20 October, with two of Halsey’s carrier

groups providing direct support. Task Groups 38.1 and 38.4, with cruisers in

support, attacked targets on Leyte and suppressed airfields on Mindanao and

the western Visayas.152 The two other carrier groups, TGs 38.2 and 38.3, re-

mained concentrated farther north, scouting for potential threats from the di-

rection of Japan and Formosa.153 Halsey kept all the battleships together: TG

38.2 had Battleship Division 7 (Iowa and New Jersey), and four battleships were

with TG 38.3.154

The possibility that the Japanese would commit significant naval forces to de-

fend the Philippines was not seriously considered in Third or Seventh Fleet

plans.155 This was a mistake; in the summer of 1944, the Japanese had created a

series of plans, code-named SHO-GO (Victory).156 The southernmost of these,

SHO-1, covered the defense of the Philippines.157 On the basis of preliminary

landings around Leyte, the Imperial General Headquarters made the decision to

implement SHO-1 on 18 October.158 Two days later, Vice Admiral Ryunosuke

Kuasaka, chief of staff to Combined Fleet commander Admiral Soemu Toyoda,

issued the final plans to units of the Combined Fleet.159

The Japanese moved toward Leyte in four elements. Vice Admiral Takeo

Kurita’s 1st Diversionary Attack Force divided in two, one part comprising his

1st and 2nd sections; led by Kurita himself, it would transit the San Bernardino

Strait. Kurita’s 3rd Section, commanded by Vice Admiral Shoji Nishimura, was

ordered to pass through Surigao Strait. Kurita planned to reunite with

Nishimura in Leyte Gulf early on the morning of 25 October and destroy the in-

vasion forces.160 The third Japanese element, the 2nd Diversionary Attack Force,

under Vice Admiral Kiyohide Shima, would come through Surigao Strait behind

Nishimura and also attack the invasion fleet. Between them, these three attack

forces had seven battleships, sixteen cruisers, and twenty-three destroyers.161

The fourth and last Japanese group, commanded by Vice Admiral Jisaburo

Ozawa, was a decoy. Ozawa took the Combined Fleet’s remaining carriers south

from Japan, hoping with them to draw the Third Fleet’s covering forces back

north, away from Leyte Gulf.162 Ozawa had four carriers, two battleship-carriers,

three cruisers, and nine destroyers.163

Halsey, still confident that the Japanese would not seek battle, was preoccu-

pied with preparations for the Third Fleet’s major follow-on operation, an


22



attack against the Japanese home islands.164 On 22 October he sent TGs 38.4 and

38.1 to the fleet base at Ulithi to refuel and rearm. Before detaching them, he

took two battleships from TG 38.3 and transferred them to TG 38.4, to go with it

to Ulithi.165 Two task groups and just four fast battleships remained in the area.

The same day, Kurita’s 1st and 2nd sections left their anchorage at Brunei Bay

on the north coast of Borneo. U.S. submarines again provided early warning of

Japanese moves. The morning of 23 October, while transiting Palawan Passage,

the submarines Dace and Darter sighted and attacked Kurita’s ships, hitting

three heavy cruisers—Atago and Maya were sunk, Takao was damaged and

forced to retire.166 Halsey and Kinkaid received these sightings and additional

information from long-range air searches; they became convinced that the Japa-

nese were moving toward the Philippines in force. Halsey quickly realized his

dispositions were inadequate and recalled TG 38.4 and its two battleships. He

did not recall TG 38.1. That group had more planes available than TG 38.4, but

Halsey considered the two battleships more important.167

Halsey disposed his forces to allow effective aerial searches to the west and

provide warning of the Japanese approach. TG 38.3 was farthest to the north,

east of Polillo Island. He placed TG 38.2 in the center, off the San Bernardino

Strait, and TG 38.4 in the south, east of Samar.168 This arrangement dispersed

Halsey’s battleship strength—each task group had just two battleships—but al-

lowed him to cover the major passages through the archipelago.

On 24 October, Kurita and Nishimura were sighted by Halsey’s carriers. TG

38.4 subjected Nishimura to a single attack, slightly damaging two of his ships.

Since Kurita posed the greater threat, Halsey left Nishimura to Kinkaid and

moved quickly to consolidate his battleship strength: TG 38.4 was ordered

north; all three carrier groups would concentrate off the San Bernardino Strait,

launching strikes against Kurita’s formation along the way. Over the course of

several hours repeated air attacks sank the battleship Musashi and damaged sev-

eral other ships. In the early afternoon Kurita turned back, seeking relief from

the onslaught.169

In the meantime, Halsey had issued a preparatory battle order in expectation

of Kurita’s force exiting the strait. TGs 38.2 and 38.4 were close enough to con-

centrate; the plan combined Battleship Division 7 with the two battleships from

TG 38.4. Four battleships, five cruisers, and ten destroyers would form as a sur-

face striking unit. Admiral Lee would command the resulting formation, desig-

nated TF 34.170 Because TG 38.3 was too distant, its battleships were not

included. Halsey planned to make do with the forces immediately on hand.

He did not implement the plan; a variety of circumstances convinced him

otherwise. Scouting reports indicated that Kurita was withdrawing, heavily

damaged. Also, intelligence available to Halsey suggested that Japanese forces in

H O N E 8 9

23



the area of the home islands were stronger than in fact they were, and this led

him to the conclusion that the most serious threat would come from the

north.171 In the afternoon, planes from TG 38.3 found that threat: they sighted

Ozawa’s main body. Halsey considered his alternatives.

[The option of] leaving TF 34 to block San Bernardino Straits . . . was rejected; the

potential strength of the Northern Forces [Ozawa] was too great to leave unmolested,

and requiring TF 34 to engage the Center Force [Kurita] while at the same time ex-

posed to attack by land-based and carrier-based air attack was not sound. This alter-

native spread our strength and risked unprofitable damage in detail.172

During the evening of 24 October, Halsey made the decision to move north with

all his forces and pursue Ozawa.173

Along the way, he put his battle plan in motion. The fleet slowed as all six bat-

tleships, seven cruisers, and eighteen destroyers separated themselves from the

carrier groups and formed TF 34, under Lee. TG 38.2 was designated as the

battle-line carrier group, to support Lee’s surface forces.174 Mitscher expected

the surface contact to take place at 4:30 AM, but estimates of the Japanese posi-

tion were incorrect. The first air strike from the carriers hit Ozawa long before

TF 34 could come into action. Coordinated attacks would have to wait until the

battleships were in position.

Halsey ran out of time. As TF 34 approached the Japanese, urgent messages

were received from Kinkaid. Escort carriers on his northern flank were engaged

in a running battle with Kurita’s 1st and 2nd sections. The remnants of the 1st

Striking Force had reversed course, passed through the San Bernardino Strait,

and were now moving toward the landing beaches. Halsey sent TF 34, minus

four cruisers and nine destroyers, south to assist; TG 38.2 followed in support.175

The cruisers and destroyers detached from TF 34 filled in and formed a sur-

face striking force.176 They continued north and attacked Japanese ships dam-

aged by the carrier strikes, finishing off the carrier Chiyoda and sinking the

destroyer Hatsuzuki after a running gun battle.177 Ozawa’s other carriers,

Zuikaku, Zuiho, and Chitose, were sunk by planes from TF 38.178 The submarine

Jallao, coached to the scene with several consorts by Admiral Lockwood, sank

the light cruiser Tama, previously damaged by air attack.179 Demoralized and

broken, Ozawa’s force retreated. In the meantime, Nishimura’s 3rd Section had

steamed into a trap set by Kinkaid’s Seventh Fleet in Surigao Strait and been vir-

tually annihilated.

Although Kinkaid had not anticipated that the Japanese would seek major ac-

tion, his forces had been well prepared for it. The Seventh Fleet’s battle plan

called for Rear Admiral Jesse B. Oldendorf ’s Fire Support Group, designated TG

77.2, and Rear Admiral Russell S. Berkey’s Close Covering Group, TG 77.3, to


24



combine in the face of strong enemy opposition.180 Oldendorf had all six of the

old battleships supporting Leyte, along with escorting cruisers and destroyers;

he and his ships had been part of the Fifth Fleet’s offensives in the Central Pa-

cific.181 Berkey’s group was part of the multinational Seventh Fleet.182 Depend-

ing on the nature of the threat, Kinkaid planned to detach Berkey, Oldendorf, or

both. Kinkaid also envisioned combining Berkey’s group with units from the

Third Fleet if Japanese light forces threatened the invasion fleet.183 Details were

left up to the individual commanders. USF 10A was perfect in situations like

these, in which disparate task groups would come together for battle; Oldendorf

would put it to good use.

By noon on 24 October, Kinkaid had realized that the Japanese were seeking

major action and ordered Oldendorf to prepare for a night battle in Surigao

Strait and to take Berkey’s TG 77.3 in support.184 Oldendorf began to formulate a

plan. He called Berkey and his battle-line commander, Rear Admiral George L.

Weyler, to his flagship so he could familiarize them with the details. The battle-

ships were loaded mainly with bombardment ammunition; Oldendorf stressed

the need to fire at medium ranges, where the effect would be maximized. He also

discussed the use of destroyer attacks before the main action; he planned to send

them down both sides of the strait.185

After the conference, Oldendorf signaled his battle plan to the six battleships,

eight cruisers, and twenty-one destroyers of his force. The battle plan specified

disposition “A-2” from USF 10A, intended for the employment of task forces like

this one.186 “A-2” (see figure 2) placed the battle line in the center and light forces

at either flank.187 This was an efficient arrangement for the confined waters at

the head of the strait, and it maximized the effectiveness of Oldendorf ’s gunfire.

H O N E 9 1

FIGURE 2FORMATION “A-2”

Source: USF 10A, p. 4-12.

25



The plan worked to perfection, including one small, extemporized addition.

Picket destroyers from TG 79.11 commanded by Captain Jesse G. Coward were

the first to attack.188 Coward had joined Oldendorf on his own initiative, dis-

playing the aggressiveness inherent in the Navy’s doctrine.189 Nishimura’s at-

tempt to penetrate into Leyte Gulf failed, disorganized by a series of destroyer

torpedo attacks and shattered by battleship and cruiser gunfire. One destroyer

and a badly damaged cruiser were all that survived to retreat down the strait.

Following in Nishimura’s wake, Shima’s 2nd Diversionary Attack Force “fired

ineffective torpedoes at radar ghosts to the north” and quickly withdrew.190

Soon thereafter, Kurita’s force reappeared off Samar, within visual range of

Kinkaid’s escort carriers. A desperate fight ensued; both Halsey and Kinkaid

mustered powerful forces to counter the threat.191 Kinkaid ordered Oldendorf to

send a battleship division, a heavy cruiser division, and supporting destroyers to

assist the carriers. Oldendorf chose to send the three battleships that had the

most armor-piercing ammunition remaining, all four of his heavy cruisers, and

twenty destroyers, all of which had at least five torpedoes.192

As we have seen, Halsey sent TF 34 and TG 38.2 south to support Kinkaid, but

they would not find Kurita. Shortly after noon on 25 October, he had turned to

the north and headed back toward the San Bernardino Strait. When this became

apparent, Halsey ordered TG 34.5, a pursuit force formed around Battleship Di-

vision 7, to separate from TF 34 and go after the retreating enemy.193

The pursuit force contained two battleships, three cruisers, and eight destroy-

ers under the command of Rear Admiral Oscar C. Badger. Halsey’s intention was

for Badger to employ battle disposition “A-1” (see figure 3) from USF 10A, con-

centrating all light forces in the van.194 TF 34.5 would engage on parallel courses


FIGURE 3FORMATION “A-1”

Source: USF 10A, p. 4-11.

26



at long range, with light forces on the offensive.195 This was battle plan “1L1.”

Badger arrived too late to engage Kurita but in the darkness found destroyer

Nowaki, which had remained behind to pick up survivors, and sank it. The battle

of Leyte Gulf was over.

Japanese efforts to contest the landings in the Philippines and Marianas had

led to the decisive battle both navies had anticipated before the war.196 Although

the expected clash of battle lines did not occur, the outcome was decisive. The re-

maining Japanese surface forces lacked the fuel and strength necessary to chal-

lenge further offensives; the Combined Fleet had become a hollow shell.

PREWAR PRINCIPLES AND WARTIME LESSONS

Several important elements of the Navy’s tactical doctrine contributed to the

success of the rapid offensive through the Central Pacific. The new approach to

the development and dissemination of doctrine introduced by the Pacific Fleet

in the summer of 1943 prepared it to divide itself into a series of carrier-centric

task forces and ensured that when the fleet came together in the face of enemy

surface threats, it could act as a cohesive unit. This approach rectified the short-

comings of prewar doctrinal development by relieving task force commanders

of the burden of creating battle plans and doctrines for their forces.

Principles of prewar doctrine also contributed to success. The most obvious

of these was the depth and richness of the Navy’s prewar major action plans,

which relied on concentration of all available forces and cooperative action

against the enemy battle line. The influence of these principles can be seen in the

major action plans developed by Spruance, Mitscher, and Halsey. The coordi-

nated attack attempted by the Third Fleet was derived directly from prewar

concepts.

The synthesis of prewar principles and wartime lessons in PAC 10 and USF

10A also benefited lower-level commanders, who consistently relied upon them.

The way Lee and Oldendorf leveraged the new manuals to ensure cooperation

and common understanding has been described.197 Other commanders, includ-

ing Badger, Weyler, Rear Admiral John F. Shafroth, and Rear Admiral Giffen,

employed them the same way.198 Use of these doctrinal manuals became perva-

sive—and this was essential. Because the standard operational formations were

fast carrier groups, surface commanders could not assume they would be able to

concentrate all ships of their battle formations for practice or indoctrination.

Coordinated action could only be ensured through specific common doctrines

provided at the fleet level or above.

However, the Navy’s approach was not without its flaws. The worst of these

was the failure to anticipate Japanese responses to the increasing size and power

of the U.S. carrier forces. The Japanese addressed the problem in several ways,

H O N E 9 3

27



two of which are relevant here.199 The first was continued emphasis on a poten-

tial equalizer that had been an important part of their surface warfare doctrine

for years—night battle. The second was the use of divided dispositions and dis-

persed formations.

Both of these responses were asymmetric, and the Navy did not deal with

them effectively. This was particularly true of night combat. Existing doctrinal

principles, reinforced by prewar exercises and wartime lessons, stressed that

night action was undesirable, dangerous to powerful surface units. Concen-

trated formations of light forces could win minor battles at night, but major ac-

tions were to be fought in daylight. Spruance and Lee showed no desire to

challenge these principles on the night of 18 June in the Philippine Sea and, as a

result, missed an opportunity to force the Japanese into a decisive battle. Four

months later, Oldendorf ’s ad hoc task force achieved overwhelming victory at

Surigao Strait, suggesting what might have been.

The second Japanese response that caused problems touched upon a solidly

entrenched principle of the U.S. Navy’s tactical doctrine, concentration. Con-

centration was considered essential to the effectiveness of a battle fleet. Prewar

plans assumed that the Japanese approach to decisive battle would also empha-

size concentration and that major actions would accordingly be fought between

massed formations. The Japanese use of dispersed task groups in the carrier bat-

tles of 1942 should have challenged this assumption, but it did not. Even in 1944,

by which time the U.S. Navy had sufficient strength to divide into multiple task

forces and fight two battles simultaneously, it developed no major action plans

to counter dispersed enemy formations.

Spruance and Halsey emphasized concentration in their battle and opera-

tional plans. This conservative approach, driven by the fear of defeat in detail,

limited their opportunities when the Japanese gave battle. In the battle of the

Philippine Sea, Spruance repeatedly insisted on remaining concentrated and re-

fused to capitalize upon the mobility and flexibility of his multiple carrier task

forces. This reluctance allowed the Japanese to strike the first blow and permit-

ted them to withdraw when their attacks failed. Halsey was presented with a per-

fect opportunity to finish off the Combined Fleet at Leyte; a judicious division

of forces would have allowed him to defeat both Kurita and Ozawa on 25 Octo-

ber. But Halsey did not seriously consider divided action.200

The lesson was learned eventually, but too late. In his analysis of the October

fighting, Vice Admiral George D. Murray, Commander, Air Force, Pacific Fleet,

wrote, “Concentration, though usually sound, may sometimes be pursued too

far, with diminishing returns. The ability to divide forces cleverly, as developed

by the enemy, and to ‘unconcentrate’ quickly, may often be an advantage.”201 Un-

fortunately, the failure to recognize and adapt to Japanese asymmetries had


28



already prevented Spruance and Halsey from crushing the Combined Fleet in a

single decisive blow.

Ultimately, it made no difference—Leyte Gulf destroyed Japan as a naval

power. This victory was achieved not just by success in battle but through sus-

tained campaigning. The Central Pacific offensive is an illuminating example of

the benefits of prioritizing strategic, operational, and tactical goals appropri-

ately. The main strategic objective, the defeat of Japan, was paramount. It was

achieved by a sustained offensive through the Japanese defensive perimeter. This

offensive had two subsidiary goals, maintenance of a rapid operational tempo

and defeat of the Japanese surface fleet.

Airplanes and airpower—particularly the Pacific Fleet’s carriers, but also its

land-based air forces—were essential to securing the first of these goals. The fast

carriers were the engine that drove the fast pace of operations, suppressing Japa-

nese positions, destroying planes and ships, and enabling amphibious

landings.202 Accordingly, the Pacific Fleet organized itself around carrier task

forces, because only they could ensure a fast pace of operations.

The second goal, the destruction of the Japanese fleet, required a battle, a tac-

tical component of a larger operation. Even though this was a strategic goal, its

tactical nature gave it, appropriately, a secondary priority—carriers, and the op-

erational tempo they enabled, were paramount. This fact limited the opportuni-

ties for battle-line commanders to train with their units and develop cohesion,

and it led to Lee’s decision to decline a night battle at the Philippine Sea.203 But

the overall rewards justified such decisions.

This outcome contrasts starkly with the opportunities the Japanese lost by in-

verting the priority of their strategic and tactical planning. They developed a so-

phisticated tactical doctrine for major fleet action, around which they developed

operations and strategy—with predictable, and unfortunate, results.204

The success of the U.S. Navy’s approach and the emphasis placed on carrier

airpower have overshadowed the important role battleships played in the Navy’s

tactical doctrine. The long-awaited clash of battle lines never occurred; this fact,

coupled with the dominant role of the carriers in the last eighteen months of the

war, has led to the conclusion that battleships were relegated to supporting roles

during the Central Pacific offensive.205 The foregoing analysis has shown this

traditional view to be false. Battleships were an essential element of the Navy’s

plan for decisive battle and therefore collectively an essential part of the cam-

paign. Every plan for major action developed during the Central Pacific offen-

sive relied on the employment of a battle fleet. In this respect, Spruance, though

often considered to have been a “battleship admiral,” was no different from

Halsey and Mitscher.206

H O N E 9 5

29



When Halsey and Spruance emphasized concentration, it was the concentra-

tion of battleships that concerned them. Spruance always kept the bulk of his

battleship strength together: at Makin in the Gilberts, off Kwajalein in the Mar-

shals, in TG 58.3 at Truk, and around Saipan in the Marianas. Halsey, once he

knew the avenue of Kurita’s approach, quickly moved to mass his battleships.

When he went after Ozawa, all the battleships came with him, and when TF 34

reversed course, they all headed south again. It was only after Leyte Gulf and the

decisive defeat of Japanese surface units that battleships began to be distributed

evenly among the fast carrier groups on a regular basis and moved to supporting

roles.207

In the immediate postwar period, wartime experience was reviewed, and les-

sons were compiled into a new series of tactical manuals. The comprehensive,

single-volume format of USF 10B was discarded; numerous additions to the

core originally adopted from PAC 10 over the course of the war had made the

document large and unwieldy. Material from it and other manuals was collected

in several new volumes issued in 1946 and 1947: U.S.F. 2, General Tactical In-

structions, United States Fleets; U.S.F. 4, Carrier Task Force Tactical Instructions,

United States Fleets; U.S.F. 5, Surface Action and Tactics, United States Fleets; and

U.S.F. 15, CIC Instructions, United States Fleets.208

Nimitz, now Chief of Naval Operations, oversaw the issuance of the new

manuals. The introduction of USF 5 borrowed directly from PAC 10:

USF 5 is not intended nor shall it be construed as depriving any officer exercising tac-

tical command of authority to issue special instructions to his command. USF 5,

however, should make such instructions unnecessary under ordinary circumstances

and should minimize them in extraordinary circumstances. The ultimate aim is to

obtain essential uniformity without unacceptable sacrifice of flexibility.209

The new manuals retained both the doctrines developed before the war that

proved effective and those produced during it. They offered tactics for units

large and small.210 The range bands and battle-plan designators first introduced

in Tentative Fleet Dispositions and Battle Plans of 1930 were reissued in USF 5.211

Coordinated attacks were still considered effective.212 The problems of combat

with small units, the “minor tactics” first seriously addressed by PAC 10, formed

a large part of the new surface warfare manual.213

The synthesis of prewar principles and wartime lessons introduced by the Pa-

cific Fleet in 1943 was validated by the successful conclusion of the campaign

and defeat of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The new approach enabled employ-

ment of fast carrier task forces in a way that allowed a rapid offensive. Detailed

operational and tactical plans completed the picture, preparing the Pacific Fleet


30



to thwart Japanese countermoves and to triumph, even if not as thoroughly as

desired, in the decisive battle.

N O T E S

I would like to thank Mr. Barry Zerby of theNational Archives for his invaluable assis-tance in locating numerous documents.

1. Edward S. Miller, War Plan Orange: The U.S.Strategy to Defeat Japan, 1897–1945(Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 1991).

2. A fleet train consisted of supporting auxilia-ries and amphibious ships necessary to seizean island base and sustain the fleet in distantwaters; see Blue Fleet Operation Order No. 1, 1January 1924, Fleet Problem Microfilm, Re-cords of the Office of the Chief of Naval Op-erations, Record Group 38, National Archives[hereafter FPM, RG 38, NA], app. A.

3. These capabilities had been foreshadowed inthe Navy’s own Fleet Problems, illustrated bythe Japanese in their initial offensives, anddemonstrated in the famous carrier battles of1942; see Mark Allen Campbell, “The Influ-ence of Air Power upon the Evolution of Bat-tle Doctrine in the U.S. Navy, 1922–1941”(History Department, University of Massa-chusetts, master of arts thesis, December1992); Samuel Eliot Morison, History of theUnited States Naval Operations in World WarII, 15 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1984), vol.3, pp. 80–126, 314–20, 381–86; vol. 4, pp.33–64, 69–159; and vol. 5, pp. 79–107,199–224.

4. For the continuity of strategic planning, seeMiller, War Plan Orange, pp. 331–46.

5. See Trent Hone, “‘Give Them Hell!’: The USNavy’s Night Combat Doctrine and the Cam-paign for Guadalcanal,” War in History 13,no. 2 (April 2006), pp. 171–99.

6. Keeping the enemy off balance was an impor-tant element of the Navy’s doctrine; see TrentHone, “Building a Doctrine: USN Tactics andBattle Plans in the Interwar Period,” Interna-tional Journal of Naval History 1, no. 2 (Octo-ber 2002), available at www.ijnhonline.org.

7. Dominion over the bulk of the island groupswas granted to Japan by the Treaty of Ver-sailles; this “mandate” led to the term’s

application to the islands as a whole. Al-though Guam in the Marianas was anAmerican possession, it was isolated andquickly seized by the Japanese after the out-break of war, as anticipated. The Japaneseplanned to use their positions in the islandsto oppose the Pacific Fleet’s advance with re-peated attacks by airplanes, submarines, andlight forces. Attritional battles on the defen-sive perimeter were expected to enable themain body of the Combined Fleet to chal-lenge the Navy’s advance and defeat it in adecisive battle; see David C. Evans and MarkR. Peattie, Kaigun (Annapolis, Md.: Naval In-stitute Press, 1997), pp. 286–91.

8. Memorandum for Secret Files: Courses of Ac-tion Open to Us in a Pacific Campaign, Attack,Capture and Occupation of the Mandated Is-lands, Strategic Plans Division Records, Re-cords of the Office of the Chief of NavalOperations, Record Group 38, National Ar-chives [hereafter SPD, RG 38, NA], box 153,p. 1.

9. Morison, History, vol. 7, p. 82.

10. Preliminary Draft of Campaign—Granite,Commander-in-Chief, United States PacificFleet, 27 December 1943, World War TwoPlans, Orders, and Related Documents, Re-cords of the Office of the Chief of Naval Op-erations, Record Group 38, National Archives[hereafter WW2 POR, RG 38, NA], box 24.The first quoted phrase appears on page 1,the second on page 2.

11. Thomas Wildenberg, Gray Steel and BlackOil: Fast Tankers and Replenishment at Sea inthe U.S. Navy, 1912–1992 (Annapolis, Md.:Naval Institute Press, 1996), pp. 168–203;Morison, History, vol. 7, pp. 100–13; HenryE. Eccles, Operational Naval Logistics (Hono-lulu: Univ. Press of the Pacific, 2003).

12. Although later Fleet Problems involved theuse of detached and separated forces, the co-hesion of the fleet remained a fundamentalassumption; see Report of Fleet Problem Ten, 7

H O N E 9 7

31



May 1930, Fleet Problem Microfilm, GeneralRecords of the Department of the Navy, Re-cord Group 80, National Archives [hereafterFPM, RG 80, NA]; Estimate of the Situation ofthe Black Fleet, Fleet Problem XVIII, 15 March1937, FPM, RG 38, NA; Fleet ProblemXIX—Concept of, Director of Fleet TrainingDivision, 10 August 1937, FPM, RG 38, NA.

13. The Central Pacific offensive was consideredcomplementary to the continuing operationsin the South Pacific; see Thomas B. Buell,Master of Sea Power: A Biography of Fleet Ad-miral Ernest J. King (Boston: Little, Brown,1980), p. 339.

14. Milan N. Vego, The Battle for Leyte, 1944: Al-lied and Japanese Plans, Preparations, and Ex-ecution (Annapolis, Md.: Naval InstitutePress, 2006), p. 286.

15. Preliminary Draft of Campaign—Granite, p.6.

16. Ibid., p. 7.

17. Thomas C. Hone and Trent Hone, BattleLine: The United States Navy 1919–1939(Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2006),pp. 68–89.

18. Night Search and Attack Operations, DestroyerTactical Bulletin No. 5-38, Commander De-stroyers Battle Force, 1938, USN TechnicalPublications, entry 336A, Records of the Of-fice of the Chief of Naval Operations, RecordGroup 38, National Archives [hereafter 336A,RG 38, NA], box 129; Night Search and At-tack, DTP 2-40, Commander Destroyers BattleForce, 1940, 336A, RG 38, NA, box 130; U.S.Pacific Fleet Tactical Bulletin No. 5-41: LightForces in Night Search and Attack, 24 Decem-ber 1941, Naval Historical Center, WorldWar Two Command File [hereafter NHC,WW2 CF], box 250.

19. Battle-line carriers were successful in numer-ous Fleet Problems. Langley was used this wayin Fleet Problem XI; see United States FleetProblem XI, 1930, Report of the Commanderin Chief United States Fleet, Adm. W. V.Pratt, U.S.N., 14 July 1930, FPM, RG 80, NA,p. 68. Langley and Saratoga operated asbattle-line carriers in Fleet Problem XIII; seeUnited States Fleet Problem XIII, 1932, Reportof the Commander-in-Chief United StatesFleet, Adm. Frank H. Schofield, 23 May 1932,FPM, RG 38, NA. Lexington and Saratoga

operated together with the main body inFleet Problem XVIII; see BLACK Fleet, Nar-ratives of Events, Fleet Problem XVIII, Com-mander Battle Force (Commander BLACKFleet), 11 May 1937, FPM, RG 38, NA; battleplans described the employment of battle-line carriers; see F.T.P. 188, General TacticalInstructions, United States Navy [hereafterFTP 188], 1940, NHC, WW2 CF, box 108,pp. 14-1 through 14-27.

20. Battle plans prescribed specific roles for sub-marines in battle; see FTP 188, pp. 14-1through 14-27. In Fleet Problems they wereoccasionally employed this way; see Report ofFleet Problem XV, 1 June 1934, FPM, RG 38,NA.

21. Tentative Fleet Dispositions and Battle Plans,United States Fleet, 1930, USN and RelatedOperational, Tactical, and Instructional Pub-lications, entry 337, Records of the Office ofthe Chief of Naval Operations, Record Group38, National Archives [hereafter 337, RG 38,NA], box 108.

22. See Trent Hone, “The Evolution of Fleet Tac-tical Doctrine in the U.S. Navy, 1922–1941,”Journal of Military History 67, no. 4 (October2003), pp. 1107–48.

23. The number 3 was reserved for pursuit ac-tions, 4 for retirement, 5 for delay, and 6 forwithdrawal; see F.T.P. 142, General TacticalInstructions, United States Navy [hereafterFTP 142], 1934, NHC, WW2 CF, box 108, p.235; FTP 188, p. 14-1.

24. D indicated light forces on the defensive; BFmeant light forces attacking on both flanks; Sand V called for submarine and air attacks,respectively; see FTP 142, p. 235; FTP 188, p.14-1.

25. FTP 188, pp. 14-4, 14-5, 14-14, 14-15.

26. U.S.F. 10, Current Tactical Orders and Doc-trine, United States Fleet [hereafter USF 10],1941, NHC, WW2 CF, box 270, diagram 1, p.33.

27. See Hone, “Building a Doctrine.”

28. Perhaps the best perspective of the Navy’sviews is provided by the comments of Adm.Joseph M. Reeves after Fleet Problem XVI:“The strategy of dividing the White Fleet intotwo groups each inferior to the Black Fleet isdoubtful. . . . It gave Black the opportunity ofdefeating the White Fleet in detail.” Fleet


32



Problem Sixteen, Report of Commander-in-Chief, United States Fleet, USS Pennsylva-nia, Flagship, 15 September 1935, FPM, RG38, NA, p. 20.

29. See Hone, “The Evolution of Fleet TacticalDoctrine in the U.S. Navy, 1922–1941.”

30. Submarines were given roles in battle plans;see FTP 188, pp. 14-1 through 14-27. Mine-layers were also to be used; see Tentative WarInstructions for Light Mine Layers, 1 Novem-ber 1923, entry 178, RG 38, NA, box 1.

31. Harris Laning, An Admiral’s Yarn, ed. MarkRussell Shulman et al. (Newport, R.I.: NavalWar College Press, 1999), app. 2, “The NavalBattle,” May 1933, p. 414.

32. See Hone, “The Evolution of Fleet TacticalDoctrine in the U.S. Navy, 1922–1941.”

33. See Hone and Hone, Battle Line, pp. 86–87.

34. Numerous prewar battle plans involved theclose cooperation of submarines and the sur-face fleet; see FTP 188, pp. 14-1 through14-27; U.S.F. 10, Current Tactical Orders andDoctrine, United States Fleet, 1934, NHC,WW2 CF, box 270; U.S.F. 10, Current Tacti-cal Orders, United States Fleet, 1938, NHC,WW2 CF, box 270.

35. See Hone, “‘Give Them Hell!’”

36. See ibid.

37. See ibid. Also, Secret Information Bulletin No.5: Battle Experience Solomon Island Actions,December 1942–January 1943, Naval WarCollege Archives, Manuscript Collection 207,box 1, folder 8, chap. 31.

38. The redundancy and inconsistency wereplain to Nimitz’s staff; see Revision of PacificFleet Cruising Instructions, Pacific Board toRevise Cruising Instructions, 18 May 1943,WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box 22, p. 1. For asampling of tactical bulletins, see U.S. PacificFleet Tactical Bulletin No. 3-41: Battle Plans,21 November 1941, NHC, WW2 CF, box250; U.S. Pacific Fleet Tactical Bulletin No.4-41: Tentative Fleet Dispositions, 5 December1941, entry 107, Record Group 313, Recordsof the Naval Operating Forces, National Ar-chives [hereafter 107, RG 313, NA], box6543; U.S. Pacific Fleet Tactical Bulletin No.5-41: Light Forces in Night Search and Attack,24 December 1941, 107, RG 313, NA, box6543; U.S. Pacific Fleet Tactical Bulletin No.

6-41: Radar Doctrine, U.S. Pacific Fleet, 31December 1941, NHC WW2 CF, box 250;U.S. Pacific Fleet Tactical Bulletin No. 2-42(Revised): Instructions for Fueling at Sea, 28August 1942, 107, RG 313, NA, box 6543;U.S. Pacific Fleet Tactical Bulletin No. 4TB-42:Pacific Fleet Radar Doctrine, 26 November1942, 107, RG 313, NA, box 6543; U.S. PacificFleet Tactical Bulletin No. 5TB-42: LightForces in Night Search and Attack, 14 Novem-ber 1942, 107, RG 313, NA, box 6543. For asampling of confidential letters, see PacificFleet Confidential Letter 12CL-41: Instructionsfor Escort Commanders and Commanding Of-ficers of Escort Vessels, 107, RG 313, NA, box6593; Pacific Fleet Confidential Letter29CL-42: Damage Control and Rescue, LessonsRegarding, 107, RG 313, NA, box 6593; PacificFleet Confidential Letter 32CL-42: CommandRelationships—Task Force and Task GroupCommanders, 107, RG 313, NA, box 6593;Pacific Fleet Confidential Letter 33CL-42:Rangefinder Calibration—Procedure for, 107,RG 313, NA, box 6593.

39. John B. Lundstrom, Black Shoe Carrier Admi-ral: Frank Jack Fletcher at Coral Sea, Midway,and Guadalcanal (Annapolis, Md.: Naval In-stitute Press, 2006), pp. 497–99.

40. The large carriers were on opposite sides inFleet Problems IX, X, XI, XIII, XV, XVI,XVII, and part of XIX. They operated on thesame side in Problems XII and XIV but inseparate task forces. In Problem XVIII, theywere together but tied to the main body; seeCampbell, “Influence of Air Power,” pp.214–17; United States Fleet Problem XII, 1931,Report of the Commander in Chief UnitedStates Fleet, Adm. J. V. Chase, U.S.N., 1 April1931, FPM, RG 38, NA; United States Fleet,Problem XIV, Report of the Commander-in-Chief, United States Fleet, Adm. R. H.Leigh, 10 April 1933, FPM, RG 80, NA.

41. Campbell, “Influence of Air Power,” p. 174;Lundstrom, Black Shoe Carrier Admiral, pp.497–98.

42. Carrier task forces were generally formedaround three fast carriers, with two large fleetcarriers and one small light carrier being thenorm; see Clark G. Reynolds, The Fast Carri-ers: The Forging of an Air Navy (Annapolis,Md.: Naval Institute Press, 1992), pp. 75–76.

H O N E 9 9

33



43. Campbell, “Influence of Air Power,” pp.147–48.

44. Revision of Pacific Fleet Cruising Instructions,p. 1.

45. Morison, History, vol. 7, pp. 334, 336.

46. Ibid., vol. 13, p. 318.

47. Revision of Pacific Fleet Cruising Instructions,p. 1.


49. Historic World War II: USS Washington BB56Battleship, bb56.com.

50. Current Tactical Orders and Doctrine, U.S. Pa-cific Fleet, P.A.C. 10 [hereafter PAC 10],Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet,June 1943, 337, RG 38, NA, box 61, p. IV-2.

51. Ibid., figs. 6, 7, and 8.

52. U.S. Pacific Fleet Tactical Bulletin No. 5-41:Light Forces in Night Search and Attack; 24December 1941, 107, RG 313, NA, box 6543;U.S. Pacific Fleet Tactical Bulletin No. 5TB-42:Light Forces in Night Search and Attack; PAC10, figs. 9 and 10.

53. An excellent example of the prior method isthe plan for night action developed by RearAdm. Thomas C. Kinkaid before the battle ofTassafaronga: Operation Plan No. 1-42, Com-mander Task Force Sixty-seven, 27 Novem-ber 1942, World War Two Action andOperational Reports, Records of the Office ofthe Chief of Naval Operations, Record Group38, National Archives [hereafter WW2 AOR,RG 38, NA], box 241; Rear Adm. NormanScott’s plans are also noteworthy: Memoran-dum for Task Group Sixty-four Point Two,Norman Scott, Commander Task ForceSixty-four, 9 October 1942, WW2 AOR, RG38, NA, box 19.

54. PAC 10, p. v.

55. Current Tactical Orders and Doctrine, U.S.Fleet, U.S.F. 10A [hereafter USF 10A],Commander-in-Chief, United States Fleet, 1February 1944, WW2 Bates—Leyte Collec-tion, Records of the Office of the Chief of Na-val Operations, Record Group 38, NationalArchives [hereafter Bates, RG 38, NA], box16.

56. Compare, for example, PAC 10, part IV, withUSF 10A, part IV.

57. Compare, for example, USF 10, 1941, withUSF 10A.

58. Current Tactical Orders and Doctrine, U.S.Fleet, U.S.F. 10B, Commander-in-Chief,United States Fleet, 1 May 1945, National Ar-chives Microfilm NRS 1977-44.


60. Ibid., p. 86.

61. Ibid., p. 91.

62. Operational Experience of Fast Carrier TaskForces in World War II, WSEG Staff Study No.4, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Weap-ons Systems Evaluation Group, WashingtonD.C., 15 August 1951 (copy provided to theauthor by Dr. Thomas C. Hone), pp. 153–55.

63. Report of Fleet Problem XV.

64. Secret Information Bulletin No. 2: Battle Expe-rience Solomon Islands Actions, August andSeptember 1942, United States Fleet, Head-quarters of the Commander-in-Chief, 1March 1943, Record Group 334, Records ofInterservice Agencies, National Archives[hereafter RG 334, NA], box 443, chap. 11.

65. Nimitz and Spruance expected the Japaneseto oppose the movement into the Central Pa-cific with the bulk of their fleet; see Reynolds,Fast Carriers, pp. 79–80.

66. Operation Plan A2-43, Commander TaskForce 54 (Fifth Amphibious Force), 23 Octo-ber 1943, WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box 161.

67. Operation Plan 3-43, Commander Fifth Fleet(Central Pacific Force), 24 October 1943,WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box 59.

68. CATCHPOLE—Outline Plan, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and Pacific OceanAreas, SPD, RG 38, NA, box 137, p. 39.

69. GALVANIC Operation—General Instructionsfor, Commander Central Pacific Force, U.S.Pacific Fleet, 29 October 1943, WW2 POR,RG 38, NA, box 59, p. 1.

70. Possible modifications in plans for GAL-VANIC, Commander Central Pacific Force,U.S. Pacific Fleet, 28 October 1943, WW2POR, RG 38, NA, box 59.

71. These three ships were the last of the old bat-tleships to undergo major modifications be-fore the war, and they escaped the attack onPearl Harbor. They received additional deckarmor and updated fire control systems,

1 0 0 N A V A L W A R C O L L E G E R E V I E W

34



H O N E 1 0 1

making them the most capable of the old bat-tleships at the time of Operation GALVANIC;see Norman Friedman, US Battleships: An Il-lustrated Design History (Annapolis, Md.: Na-val Institute Press, 1985), pp. 201–203; FireControl Installations, Postgraduate School,U.S. Naval Academy, 1939, Naval HistoricalCenter Library, Washington, D.C. A fourthbattleship in the Northern Attack Force,Pennsylvania, was operating as flagship forRear Adm. Richmond K. Turner, com-mander of the assault forces, and was not in-cluded in Spruance’s major action plan; seeOperation Plan 3-43, Commander Fifth Fleet.

72. Operation Plan 3-43, Commander Fifth Fleet.

73. Operation Plan 1-43, Commander CentralPacific Force (Fifth Fleet), 25 October 1943,WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box 59.

74. Ibid., p. 9.

75. During the approach to the Gilberts, the am-phibious forces, before identifying the carrierforces as friendly, assumed they were Japa-nese and formed a line of battle. Although noplan exists for northern forces in theGALVANIC operation to form a battle line,there is no doubt they would have done so ifrequired; see Morison, History, vol. 7, p. 120.Admiral Lee was designated commander, bat-tle line; see Operation Plan 3-43, CommanderFifth Fleet.

76. Operation Plan 3-43, Commander Fifth Fleet.

77. Ibid.

78. GALVANIC Operation—General Instructionsfor, p. 1.

79. Imperial Japanese Navy Page,www.combinedfleet.com.

80. Ibid.


82. Ibid., vol. 7, pp. 201–203.

83. Battle Plan No. 1, Commander, Support Unit(Commander Cruiser Division Six), 29 No-vember 1943, WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box260.


85. Ibid., p. 206.

86. Reynolds, Fast Carriers, p. 103.

87. Operation Plan No. 1-44, Commander Cen-tral Pacific Force (Fifth Fleet), 6 January1944, WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box 60, p. 14.


89. Previous fast battleships were limited to 27.5knots; see Friedman, US Battleships, pp.447–49. For the task force breakdown, seeOperation Plan No. 1-44, Commander Cen-tral Pacific Force.

90. Miller, War Plan Orange, pp. 286–312.

91. Operation Plan 2-44, Commander Fifth Fleet(Central Pacific Force), 6 January 1944.Spruance planned to use the old battleshipsin spite of the fact that they carried mostlybombardment ammunition; see OperationPlan No. 1-44, Commander Central PacificForce, p. 12.

92. Deployment and Battle Plan, CommanderSupport Group (Commander Cruiser Divi-sion Six), 9 November 1943, WW2 POR, RG38, NA, box 260; Operation Plan 2-44, Com-mander Fifth Fleet, p. H-5.

93. Operation Plan 2-44, Commander Fifth Fleet,p. H-5.

94. Ibid., p. H-1.

95. Operational Experience of Fast Carrier TaskForces in World War II, pp. 162–64.

96. Ibid., p. 162; Morison, History, vol. 7, p. 353.

97. Engagement off Truk, 16 February 1944—Re-port of, Commanding Officer, U.S.S. Iowa, 26February 1944, WW2 AOR, RG 38, NA, box556.

98. Battleship Division 7 was frequently consid-ered as a pursuit element; see Operation Or-der 3-44, Battleship Division Seven (TaskGroup 34.5), 7 October 1944, WW2 POR, RG38, NA, box 232; Operation Order No. 5-45,Battleship Division Seven (Task Unit 58.4.2),31 March 1945, WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box232.

99. Task Group 50.9 faced similar difficulties; al-though the destroyers and battleships had op-erated together in FLINTLOCK, the cruisersMinneapolis and New Orleans had been partof the assault forces during the attack onKwajalein; see Morison, History, vol. 7, p.344. The battleships and destroyers had allbeen part of Task Group 58.3; see OperationPlan No. 1-44, Commander Central PacificForce.


101. Ibid., vol. 8, p. 36.

35



102. Ibid., p. 61.

103. Ibid., p. 36.

104. Ibid.

105. Operation Plan 5-44, Commander Fast Car-rier Task Force, Pacific (Task Force 58), 9April 1944, WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box 235,annex H, Operation Plan A.

106. Operation Plan 1-44, Commander Battle-ships, Pacific Fleet, 12 April 1944, WW2POR, RG 38, NA, box 224.

107. Operation Plan 5-44, Commander Fast Car-rier Task Force, annex H, Operation Plan A.

108. Ibid., Operation Plan B.

109. Ibid., Operation Plan C.

110. Morison, History, vol. 8, pp. 160–61; Opera-tion Plan 10-44, Commander Fifth Fleet(Commander Central Pacific Force), 12 May1944, WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box 61, p. 23.

111. Secret Information Bulletin No. 20: Battle Ex-perience, Supporting Operations for the Cap-ture of the Marianas Islands (Saipan, Guam,and Tinian), June–August 1944, United StatesFleet, Headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief, 21 December 1944, RG 334, NA,box 444, p. 74-23.

112. Operation Plan 12-44, Commander FifthFleet (Task Force 50), 11 May 1944, WW2POR, RG 38, NA, box 61; Operation Plan3-43, Commander Fifth Fleet; Operation Plan2-44, Commander Fifth Fleet.

113. Operation Plan 12-44, Commander FifthFleet; Operation Plan A10-44, CommanderTask Force 51 (Commander Fifth Amphibi-ous Force), 6 May 1944, WW2 POR, RG 38,NA, box 166, annex S.

114. Operation Plan 10-44, Commander FifthFleet, p. 21.

115. The plan called for strikes to start on 12 June;see ibid., annex G, p. G-1. Explanation of theadvanced date is from Secret Information Bul-letin No. 20, p. 74-7.

116. Operation Plan 10-44, Commander FifthFleet, pp. 12–13.

117. Quoted in Morison, History, vol. 8, p. 221.

118. Morison, History, vol. 8, pp. 216, 233.

119. Redfin reported the sortie of Ozawa’s forcefrom Tawi Tawi on 13 June, Flying Fish spot-ted the Japanese as they left San Bernardino

on 15 June, and Seahorse reported the ad-vance of the Japanese southern group thesame day, although its radio was jammed un-til early the next morning; see ibid., pp.237–41.

120. Operation Plan 12-44, Commander FifthFleet, p. J-4.

121. Ibid.


123. Operations of Task Force Fifty-eight 11 Junethrough 21 June 1944, Commander TaskForce Fifty-eight, 11 September 1944, WW2AOR, RG 38, NA, box 215, pp. 12–13.


125. Operations of Task Force Fifty-eight 11 Junethrough 21 June 1944, p. 14.

126. Ibid., p. 17.

127. Ibid.

128. Because the carrier task forces were the stan-dard organization, Lee never had the abilityto drill his battle fleet; see Reynolds, Fast Car-riers, p. 126.

129. In November 1942 Lee took an ad hoc taskforce consisting of Washington, South Dakota,and four destroyers into the darkness offGuadalcanal. There had been no opportunityto train beforehand. Two destroyers werelost, the other two were disabled, and SouthDakota was crippled by electrical problemsand enemy fire; see Morison, History, vol. 5,pp. 270–82.

130. Lee’s battleships came from Task Groups 58.2and 58.3. His cruisers and destroyers werefrom the assault forces, Task Forces 52 and53; see Morison, History, vol. 8, apps. II andIII; Operation Plan 12-44, Commander FifthFleet; Operation Plan 10-44, CommanderFifth Fleet.

131. Report of Night Action, Task Force Sixty-four—November 14–15, 1942, CommanderTask Force Sixty-four, n.d. (copy provided tothe author by Mr. Keith Allan), p. 8.


133. Ibid.

134. For the traditional interpretation, seeMorison, History, vol. 8, p. 244.


36



135. Research on Striking Force Tactics, YokosukaNaval Air Group, 10 May 1943 (copy pro-vided to author by Mr. David Dickson).

136. Ibid., p. 3.



139. Ibid., p. 19.

140. Ibid., p. 20.

141. Morison, History, vol. 8, pp. 257–304.



144. Ibid., vol. 12, p. 12.

145. Ibid., pp. 11–16.

146. Vego, Battle for Leyte, pp. 255–99, 335–36.

147. Operation Plan 8-44, CINCPOA, 27 Septem-ber 1944, quoted in Vego, Battle for Leyte, p.126.

148. Battle Plan No. 1-44, Commander ThirdFleet, 9 September 1944, WW2 POR, RG 38,NA, box 57, p. 1. Note that this plan coveredThird Fleet operations prior to Leyte. Theraids of September 1944 were governed bythis plan as well.

149. Ibid., pp. 1–2, 18–19.

150. Ibid., annex A, p. 2.

151. Ibid., p. 2.

152. Vego, Battle for Leyte, pp. 155–60; Morison,History, vol. 12, p. 196.

153. Vego, Battle for Leyte, pp. 155–60; Morison,History, vol. 12, p. 196.


155. Vego, Battle for Leyte, p. 100.

156. Ibid., p. 10.

157. Ibid., p. 49.

158. Ibid., p. 197.

159. Kuasaka issued the order because Toyoda wason Formosa, with limited access to commu-nication; see ibid., pp. 161–62, 212; RichardW. Bates, The Battle for Leyte Gulf, October1944, Strategical and Tactical Analysis, vol. 3,Operations from 0000 October 20th (D-Day)until 1042 October 23rd (Newport, R.I.: Naval

War College, Bureau of Naval Personnel,1957), Bates, RG 38, NA, box 3, p. 150.

160. Bates, Battle for Leyte Gulf, vol. 3, p. 397.

161. Morison, History, vol. 12, pp. 230–31,430–31.

162. Vego, Battle for Leyte, pp. 227–29.


164. Bates, Battle for Leyte Gulf, vol. 3, pp. 106,567.

165. Ibid., p. 569.

166. Vego, Battle for Leyte, p. 221.

167. Bates, Battle for Leyte Gulf, vol. 3, pp. 769–72.

168. Action Report—Period 23–26 October 1944,both dates inclusive, Commander Third Fleet,13 November 1944, Bates, RG 38, NA, box10, p. 2; Bates, Battle for Leyte Gulf, vol. 3, pp.771–72.

169. Vego, Battle for Leyte, pp. 257–59.

170. Report of Operations of Task Force Thirty-fourduring the Period 6 October 1944 to 3 Novem-ber 1944, Commander Task Force Thirty-four, 14 December 1944, WW2 AOR, RG 38,NA, box 135, p. 5; Richard W. Bates, The Bat-tle for Leyte Gulf, October 1944, Strategical andTactical Analysis, vol. 5, Battle of SurigaoStrait, October 24th–25th (Newport, R.I.: Na-val War College, Bureau of Naval Personnel,1958) (copy provided to author by Mr. An-thony Lazzaretti), p. 169.


172. Action Report—Period 23–26 October 1944, p.5.

173. Ibid.; Secret Information Bulletin No. 22: BattleExperience, Battle for Leyte Gulf: A) Battle ofSurigao Strait, B) Battle off Samar, C) Battle ofCape Engano, 23–27 October 1944, UnitedStates Fleet, Headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief, 1 March 1945, RG 334, NA, box 445,pp. 78-13 and 78-14; Vego, Battle for Leyte, p.278. Not all of Halsey’s subordinates agreedwith this decision; see David Hamer, Bombersversus Battleships (Annapolis, Md.: Naval Insti-tute Press, 1998), p. 279.

174. Report of Operations of Task Force Thirty-fourduring the Period 6 October 1944 to 3 Novem-ber 1944, p. 8; Morison, History, vol. 12, pp.318–19.

H O N E 1 0 3

37




175. Report of Operations of Task Force Thirty-fourduring the Period 6 October 1944 to 3 Novem-ber 1944, pp. 9–10; Morison, History, vol. 12,pp. 318–19.

176. One additional destroyer was added; seeMorison, History, vol. 12, pp. 318–19.

177. Ibid., pp. 331–32.

178. Ibid., pp. 322–28.

179. Ibid., pp. 332–34.

180. Operation Plan 13-44, Commander TaskForce Seventy-seven, 26 September 1944,WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box 66, app. 2, annexE.

181. Morison, History, vol. 7, p. 346; vol. 8, p. 409;vol. 12, pp. 416, 419.

182. Ibid., vol. 8, p. 406. Australian ships servedunder Berkey; see ibid., vol. 12, p. 421.

183. Operation Plan 13-44, Commander TaskForce Seventy-seven, app. 2, annex E.


185. Ibid., p. 122.

186. Ibid., p. 124.

187. USF 10A, p. 4-12.


189. Ibid., pp. 236–38.

190. See Trent Hone, “Triumph of U.S. NavyNight Fighting,” Naval History 20, no. 5 (Oc-tober 2006), pp. 54–59.

191. For details of the action, see Morison, His-tory, vol. 12, pp. 242–88.


193. Report of Operations of Task Force Thirty-fourduring the Period 6 October 1944 to 3 Novem-ber 1944, p. 11. For plans concerning TaskGroup 34.5 and its operation, see OperationOrder 13-44, Commander Battleships, PacificFleet (Task Force 34), 6 October 1944, WW2POR, RG 38, NA, box 224.

194. Action Report of San Bernardino Strait—NightAction by Task Group 34.5 on 25–26 October1944, Commander Task Group Thirty FourPoint Five, 7 November 1944, WW2 AOR,RG 38, NA, box 136, p. 2; USF 10A, p. 4-11.

195. Action Report of San Bernardino Strait, Com-mander Task Group Thirty Four Point Five,p. 2.

196. Thomas C. Hone, with Trent C. Hone, “ThePacific Naval War as One Coherent Cam-paign, 1941–1945,” International Journal ofNaval History 2, no. 2 (August 2003), avail-able at www.ijnhonline.org.

197. Operation Order No. 10-44, Commander Bat-tleships, Pacific Fleet, 26 August 1944, WW2POR, RG 38, NA, box 224; Operation Order13-44; Operation Order 19-44, CommanderBattleship Squadron Two (Commander TaskForce 34), 15 December 1944, WW2 POR,RG 38, NA, box 224.

198. Operation Order 3-44; Operation Order 4-44,Commander Battleship Division Seven, 12November 1944, WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box232; Operation Order 5-44, Commander Bat-tleship Division Seven, 8 December 1944,WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box 232; OperationPlan No. 1-45, Commander Battleship Divi-sion Seven, 10 March 1945, WW2 POR, RG38, NA, box 232; Operation Order No. 2-45,Commander Battleship Division Seven, 6February 1945, WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box232; Operation Order No. 3-45, CommanderBattleship Division Seven, 12 March 1945,WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box 232; OperationOrder No. 5-45; Operation Order No. 8-45,Commander Battleship Division Seven, 17May 1945, WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box 232;Operation Order No. 2-45, Commander Bat-tleship Division Eight, 4 May 1945, WW2POR, RG 38, NA, box 232; Operation PlanNo. 1-45, Commander Battleship DivisionThree, 23 January 1945, WW2 POR, RG 38,NA, box 229; Battle Plan No. 1-45, Com-mander Battleship Division Three, 26 January1945, WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box 229; Oper-ation Plan No. 2-45, Commander BattleshipDivision Three, 30 January 1945, WW2 POR,RG 38, NA, box 229; Battle Plan No. 1-44,Commander Task Group Fifty-two PointEight (Commander Cruiser Division Six), 21January 1944, WW2 POR, RG 38, NA, box260.

199. The other way in which the Japanese at-tempted to address the deficiency was the useof suicide tactics.

200. Halsey considered leaving Task Force 34alone off the San Bernardino Strait but with-out air cover. This would have been a poorchoice, and he appropriately dismissed it.Leaving Task Force 34 with Task Group 38.2,

38



a more realistic option, was never seriouslyconsidered; see Action Report—Period 23–26October 1944, p. 5. Halsey had developed noplans for dispersal of his fighting strength; seeBattle Plan No. 1-44, Commander ThirdFleet.

201. Quoted in Reynolds, Fast Carriers, pp.279–80.

202. Reynolds, Fast Carriers, p. 141.


204. Haruo Tohmatsu and H. P. Willmott, AGathering Darkness: The Coming of War to theFar East and the Pacific, 1921–1942 (NewYork: SR Books, 2004), p. 42.

205. Reynolds, Fast Carriers, pp. 166–67.

206. Ibid., p. 166.

207. The battleships were in three groups for theMindoro landings in December 1944, the as-sault on Okinawa, and attacks on Japan inJuly–August 1945. This distribution contrastswith the concentration into two groups for

the Gilberts, Hollandia, Marianas, and Leyte;see Operational Experience of Fast CarrierTask Forces in World War II, pp. 189, 206;Morison, History, vol. 14, pp. 382–85.

208. U.S.F. 2, General Tactical Instructions, UnitedStates Fleets, Navy Department, Office of theChief of Naval Operations, 1947, Bates, RG38, NA, box 11; U.S.F. 4, Carrier Task ForceTactical Instructions, United States Fleets,Navy Department, Office of the Chief of Na-val Operations, 1946, Bates, RG 38, NA, box11; U.S.F. 5, Surface Action and Tactics,United States Fleets, Navy Department, Officeof the Chief of Naval Operations, 1947, Bates,RG 38, NA, box 12; U.S.F. 15, CIC Instruc-tions, United States Fleets, Navy Department,Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, 1947,Bates, RG 38, NA, box 17.

209. U.S.F. 5, Surface Action and Tactics, p. III.

210. Ibid.

211. Ibid., app. I.

212. Ibid., pp. 3–23.

213. Ibid., chap. 4.

H O N E 1 0 5

39

